Sexuality of urologist in training: Does cobbler always wear the worst shoes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sexuality is an integral part of well-being. Urologists are a population faced with a significant workload and stress that can affect their sexuality. The purpose of this study was to investigate sexuality in this population and assess factors that may impact it. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted between May and July 2023 among French urology residents and fellows. Data was collected through an anonymous questionnaire sent by the French Association of Trainee Urologists (AFUF) via email. RESULTS: Out of 445 members of the AFUF, 196 trainee urologists responded. Among them, 130 (66%) respondents were satisfied with their sexual life, and 123 (63%) reported having one or more sexual encounters per week. In univariate analysis, factors significantly impacting the level of sexual satisfaction were gender (p=0.029), level of job satisfaction/well-being (p<0.01), level of professional burnout (p<0.001), and the existence of a romantic relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Young urologists are mostly satisfied with their sexual life. Gender, level of job satisfaction/well-being, and level of professional burnout are significant factors impacting the level of sexual satisfaction.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".