MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237875151 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14651898

Childhood sexual abuse and sexual dysfunction in gay and bisexual men: the role of substance use, emotion dysregulation, and coping strategies

2021· preprint· en· W4237875151 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie Faaborg-Andersen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyClinical psychologySexual dysfunctionErectile dysfunctionCoping (psychology)Sexual abuseSubstance useMental healthSubstance abuseDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySuicide preventionPoison controlMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual dysfunction has been associated with considerable mental health and interpersonal problems. Gay and bisexual men report a higher rate of sexual dysfunction and childhood sexual abuse (CSA) compared to heterosexual men. The relationship between CSA and adult sexual health problems has been well established; however, the pathways leading from CSA to erectile dysfunction are poorly understood. The role that coping strategies, emotion dysregulation, and substance use play in the association between CSA and erectile dysfunction was examined using a mediational model. Results were not found to be statistically significant, with the exception of a significant relationship between CSA and avoidant coping. Possible explanations for the lack of significant findings are discussed, including problems with the measurement of ED. This study provided support for the disproportionately high rates of CSA among gay men.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207