Establishing Canadian metrics for self-report measures used to assess hypersexuality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the prevalence of hypersexuality in two combined Canadian adult community samples totalling 1,857 respondents (female n = 960, male n = 835, other n = 60, missing n = 2). Participants were recruited from social media to complete an online sexual behaviour survey that included two measures of compulsive sexual behaviour disorder— the Sexual Compulsivity Scale (SCS) and Hypersexual Behaviour Inventory (HBI)—as well as sexual behaviour and interest items. Respondents also reported their total sexual outlets (TSO)—defined by number of orgasms experienced weekly—as a third potential indicator of hypersexuality. Canadian men and women reported multiple sexual outlets per week that tended to be higher than previous reports. Men tended to report a larger number and higher frequency of various sexual behaviour than women, including higher rates of compulsive sexual behaviour disorder, which varied depending on the measure employed. Implications for establishing sexuality norms and conceptualizing hypersexuality and compulsive sexual behaviour disorder are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".