MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094966166 · doi:10.46292/sci2603-144

A Primary Care Provider’s Guide to Sexual Health for Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury

2020· article· en· W3094966166 on OpenAlexaff
Sigmund Hough, Colleen Cordes, Lance L. Goetz, Angela Kuemmel, Jesse Lieberman, Linda R. Mona, Mitchell S. Tepper, Jithin Varghese

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsCentre for Family Medicine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCognitive reframingReproductive healthHealth careHuman sexualitySpinal cord injuryNursingConstruct (python library)Family medicinePsychiatryPsychologyPopulationSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The collaboration with individuals regarding their sexual health is an important component of patient-centered health care. However, talking about sexual health in primary care settings is an area not fully addressed as a result of time limitations, medical task prioritization, awareness or knowledge deficit, and discomfort with the topic of sexuality. A critical shift in professional focus from disease and medical illness to the promotion of health and wellness is a prerequisite to address sexual health in the primary care setting. This article provides guidance for practitioners in primary care settings who are caring for persons with spinal cord injury. Clinicians should seize the opportunity during the encounter to reframe the experience of disability as a social construct status, moving away from the narrow view of medical condition and "find it, fix it" to a broader understanding that provides increased access to care for sexual health and sexual pleasure.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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 venueTopics in Spinal Cord Injury RehabilitationSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207