MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405029868 · doi:10.3390/sexes5040047

Sexual Shame and Women’s Sexual Functioning

2024· article· en· W4405029868 on OpenAlexaff
Camilla Graziani, Meredith L. Chivers

Bibliographic record

VenueSexes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityAdlerProfessional Engineers Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShamePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyGender studiesSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual shame negatively affects women’s sexual functioning, impacting arousal, desire, orgasm, and pain. This review summarizes the existing literature, highlighting the multiple, interacting factors contributing to sexual shame including sociocultural messages, body and genital self-image, sexual self-schemas, sexual pain, comorbid chronic disease, illness, medical disorders, and sexual trauma. The relationship between sexual shame and sexual functioning is often reciprocal, demonstrating sexual shame as a potential causal and maintaining mechanism underlying women’s sexual difficulties. We present a model proposing the mechanisms by which sexual shame affects sexual functioning, underscoring the need for comprehensive approaches to mitigate the impact of sexual shame and foster sexual well-being for women. Growing research emphasizes emotional processes in models of sexual function, and emotional pathways underlying sexual difficulties and dysfunction. Given the impact of sexual shame on women’s sexual functioning, therapeutic approaches that target sexual shame are recommended to help alleviate difficulties with sexual arousal, desire, orgasm, and sexual pain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexesSame topicMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207