Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose of Review The combined efforts of national and private space organizations are progressively allowing more people to live and work in space. But to perform long-term spaceflights and become a multiplanetary species, we must address the intimate and sexual needs of humans. Yet, research on space sexology remains limited and fragmented. To move forward, this 5-year scoping review consolidates the current research on sexual health in space. Recent Findings Fifty publications were identified, including empirical, theoretical, and review articles, and other scholarly work, such as book chapters and a commentary. Most of the research comes from biology, with contributions from philosophy, ethics, and law, gynecology/obstetrics, aerospace medicine, gender studies, and sexology. Recent findings suggest that radiation exposure, gravitational changes, and hypomagnetic fields may detrimentally impact our reproductive health. In addition, findings suggest that several gynecological risks related to spaceflights must be addressed (e.g., cancer, pregnancy, and contraception), along with many issues related to child-rearing, population diversity, reproductive and sexual rights, and intersectionality and social justice. More research is also needed on sexual responses and behaviors and the technologies that may facilitate safe sex, intimacy, and reproduction beyond Earth. Summary Space poses significant risks to our sexual health. However, despite our space missions and objectives, this topic remains relatively understudied. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive scientific program on space sexology, one that holistically addresses the biopsychosocial realities of human eroticism. This is crucial for the well-being of our spacefaring civilization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".