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 OpenAlexaffvenue
Ronald W. D. Stevenson

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations55
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207