MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6998609244

Alexitimia, masculinidade e comportamento sexual entre homens brasileiros

2022· article· en· W6998609244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaNormativeMasculinityAffect (linguistics)Socioeconomic statusInterpersonal relationshipSexual behaviorHuman sexuality
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Normative masculinity and alexithymia may negatively affect sexual life and men’s well-being. In this study, the endorsement of traditional male
\nnorms, alexithymia and sexual behavior were assessed through an online survey directed to Brazilian men. Relationship status and religion were
\nalso addressed, and associations and correlations between variables were carried out. The survey presented 66 items, including standardized
\nquestionnaires, such as Meanings of Adolescent Masculinity Scale, Toronto Alexithymia Scale and Male Sexual Quotient. The sample consisted
\nin 528 Brazilian men with high socioeconomic and educational levels. Alexithymia was negatively correlated with sexual satisfaction. The
\nendorsement of traditional male norms was positively correlated with pornography use and was also associated with sharing of pornographic
\nmaterial through social media. Married men had the lowest levels of alexithymia, with significant difference when compared with men who are not
\ncurrently in a relationship. Furthermore, having a religion was associated with greater endorsement of traditional male norms. These findings
\nsuggest that alexithymia may have greater influence on behaviors associated with interpersonal relations, including sexual satisfaction and
\nrelationship status. Conversely, normative masculinity was linked to personal variables, which did not involve a partner, including pornography
\nconsumption and religion.

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 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), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207