MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300860737 · doi:10.37871/jbres1532

The Intricacies of Research in Human Sexuality

2022· article· en· W4300860737 on OpenAlexaff
Ami Rokach

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Research & Environmental Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityQualitative researchPsychologyGender studiesSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research in sexuality is relatively new and has faced various obstacles, social frowning, and academic rejection. This paper reviews the early days of sexuality, the church’s negative view of it, and how it progressed to the 21st century. Sex research is then described and the various methodological issues reviewed. In addition, research on sexuality and alcoholism, sexuality in children, and conducting qualitative research on sexual issues is described.

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)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0120.134
Scholarly communication0.0240.025
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0060.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.426
GPT teacher head0.615
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Research & Environmental SciencesSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207