MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Biopsychosocial Puzzle of Painful Sex

2022· review· en· W4214594016 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Clinical Psychology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelMultidisciplinary approachSex therapyPsychotherapistExtant taxonContext (archaeology)Clinical trialPsychologyClinical psychologyRandomized controlled trialMedicinePsychiatrySexual dysfunctionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genital pain associated with sex is a prevalent and distressing problem with a complex research and clinical profile. This article reviews the historical context of the “sexual pain disorders” and the circuitous trajectory that has led from the first mention of painful sex in ancient documents to the latest diagnostic category of genito-pelvic pain penetration disorder in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as well as in other existing and proposed nomenclatures. Prominent etiologic research and emergent theoretical models are critically assessed, as is the latest treatment outcome research of note. Finally, the review points to a number of extant needs in the research and clinical effort, including an integrated biopsychosocial and multidisciplinary approach, randomized clinical trials, targeting of treatment barriers, and expansion of the entire enterprise to include populations that have not been considered.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.364
GPT teacher head0.607
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