Sexual Activity of Older Adults: A Systematic Review of the Literature
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The goal was to conduct a literature review of studies that examined sexual activity in older adults. Method: A systematic search was conducted to identify studies that had examined sexual activity in adults aged 60 years and older. The main characteristics of each study and results were examined and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Results: Sixty-three articles were found. These articles were classified into three main groups based on the results they presented: percentage of older adults that were sexually active; frequency of sexual activity; and type of sexual activities. The results show that older adults are sexually active, engage in frequent sexual activity, and participate in a wide variety of activities. Conclusions: Although older adults remain sexually active, differences in the way sexual activity is assessed limit the drawing of firm conclusions and our understanding of the sexual activity of older adults. We propose a series of recommendations to gain a better understanding of this topic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it