MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005450624 · doi:10.1080/23311908.2020.1722355

Examining the psychological and emotional experience of sexuality for men after spinal cord injury

2020· article· en· W3005450624 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline D. Kathnelson, Christine M. Kurtz Landy, David S. Ditor, Hala Tamim, William H. Gage

Bibliographic record

VenueCogent Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityPsychosocialPsychologySpinal cord injuryRehabilitationPerspective (graphical)Clinical psychologyMeaning (existential)Developmental psychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatrySpinal cordGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual rehabilitation for men after spinal cord injury (SCI) has focused on physical challenges and has neglected psychosocial factors. Utilizing a descriptive phenomenological approach, the lived psychological experience of sexuality was described for six men (age 24–49) with complete or incomplete SCI (C4-T12; <1 year to 29 years post-injury) who participated in one in-depth, standardized, open-ended interview (68–101 minutes). Participants described the emergence of a new perspective of sexuality placing less emphasis on any one physical act and more importance on emotional factors. Understanding the evolving meaning of sexuality for men after SCI is imperative for delivering effective sexual health information.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.273
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCogent PsychologySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207