MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W64656318 · doi:10.1177/070674370404901004

Sexual Medicine: Why Psychiatrists Must Talk to Their Patients about Sex

2004· review· en· W64656318 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatryRelevance (law)Sexual functionPopulationPsychologySexual medicineMedicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the prevalence of sexual concerns and the relevance of this area to psychiatrists and to present evidence supporting the need for psychiatrists to routinely include a sex-function inquiry in the assessment of their patients. METHOD: A review of the recent literature was undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: Sex is a fundamental quality-of-life issue. Sexual problems are extremely prevalent among the general population and even more so among persons with psychiatric or medical illness. There are at least 9 reasons why all physicians, perhaps psychiatrists especially, should make inquiry into sexual behaviours and response a routine part of caring for each patient.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.321
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