MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6891384130 · doi:10.3886/e183665v1-186902

Vulvovaginal Pain Experiences: Race and Healthcare Seeking

2025· dataset· en· W6891384130 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueICPSR Data Holdings · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRace (biology)DistressEthnic groupExploratory researchHealth careChronic painPerceptionCross-sectional studyHelp-seeking

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Vulvovaginal Pain Experiences: Race and Healthcare Seeking" was an exploratory cross sectional survey designed to explore the experiences of people of color with chronic vulvovaginal pain (CVVP) related to the quality and intensity of their pain in various contexts, the effect of their CVVP on general sexual function, the effect of their CVVP on their relationships, their experiences managing a chronic pain condition, their experiences attempting to seek treatment, and their perceptions of medical mistrust. The survey included both ad hoc items and validated psychometric measures, including the McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised, the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire 8-Item, and the Group Based Medical Mistrust Scale (GBMMS). A primary goal of this study was to better understand the experiences of people of color with CVVP, defined as any person who identifies as a race and/or ethnicity other than White non-Hispanic/Latinx. Additionally, this study aimed to examine associations between perceptions of medical mistrust measured via the GBMMS and healthcare seeking outcomes related to diagnostic delay.

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)0.009
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICPSR Data HoldingsSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207