MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409374128 · doi:10.1007/s11930-025-00405-9

Rethinking Sexual Aversion: Disgust Mechanisms and Clinical Pathways

2025· article· en· W4409374128 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Sexual Health Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisgustPsychologyTaste aversionDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapistNeuroscienceAnger

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose of Review This review examines sexual aversion, emphasizing its emotional underpinnings, particularly the role of disgust, and explores therapeutic and diagnostic advancements. It addresses the omission of sexual aversion disorder from DSM-5 and its implications for clinical practice and future research. Recent Findings Disgust, as a primary emotional mechanism in sexual aversion, distinguishes itself from related sexual dysfunctions. Research highlights the effectiveness of hierarchical intensive exposure therapy and cognitive-behavioural interventions in reducing disgust-driven avoidance behaviours. Moreover, tools such as virtual reality therapy are emerging as an innovative tool in this field. Summary Recognizing disgust’s centrality in sexual aversion underscores the need for tailored interventions and diagnostic refinement. This review/report advocates for the reclassification of sexual aversion as a distinct disorder to enhance clinical attention and outcomes and foster further 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.126 · 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