MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029049326 · doi:10.1007/s10508-020-01739-2

Conditioning of Sexual Interests and Paraphilias in Humans Is Difficult to See, Virtually Impossible to Test, and Probably Exactly How It Happens: A Comment on Hsu and Bailey (2020)

2020· letter· en· W3029049326 on OpenAlexaff
James G. Pfaus, Gonzalo R. Quintana, Conall E. Mac Cionnaith, Christine A. Gerson, Simon Dubé, Genaro A. Coria‐Ávila

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Sexual Behavior · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParaphiliaPsychologySexual behaviorTest (biology)PsychoanalysisSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.1250.086
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.007

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Sexual BehaviorSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207