Ethical challenges in research on sexual dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite more than a century of research on sexual dysfunction, there has been limited attention to ethical concerns. This is problematic because sex research involves complex ethical questions that generate confusion for ethics review and have not been addressed by ethical guidelines. We analyze two questions. First, does sexual content raise the risk profile of a research protocol? We argue that there is nothing inherent in sexual content that makes a study high risk and that many sexual dysfunction studies involve no more than minimal risk. Second, we ask whether research interventions that involve seeing participants undressed or having physical contact with a research subject are permissible? We argue that these interventions raise an important ethical challenge-they often involve sexual dysfunction researchers engaging in interventions that would not be conducted in their standard practice. To resolve this, we propose an expertise-based account of the permissibility of sexual dysfunction research.
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 | 0.569 | 0.515 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.101 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".