MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7106837224 · doi:10.14288/cjur.v9i1.199104

Sex, Spinal Cord Injuries, and Queerness

2024· article· en· W7106837224 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsCapilano University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueerSexual arousalHuman sexualityPleasureNarrativeNarrative reviewOrgasmHeterosexualitySexual desire

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The experiences of straight, cis-gendered “women” constitute nearly all of the research on sex and sexuality in people with spinal cord injuries (SCI). This narrative review aims to explore the sexual experiences of Queer people with SCI, particularly Queer people with vaginas (PWV), an underrepresented group in existing literature. This review found that 1) PWV who have partially or completely severed SCI can experience sexual arousal through both bottom-up and top-down neural processing pathways; 2) the definition of pleasure is similar among Queer and non-Queer PWV however Queer self-identifying women experience more satisfaction with self-stimulation than non Queer PWV; 3) self-identified lesbians experience greater sexual satisfaction in part due to correlation of the givers sexual desire and pleasuring their sexual partner; 4) higher rates of sexual satisfaction for Queer PWV are due to the expectation of partnered orgasm, depth of cognitive and behavioral engagement in sexual activity, less incongruities in reading body language cues, and a congruent conception in the factual influences on sexual arousal, compared to heterosexual PWV; and 5) the results of internalized homophobia ranged from not at all engaging in sexual activity to only engaging in sexual activity under the influence, which commonly led to a mental disconnect between the brain and the body and thus, struggles with communicating needs with partners as well as reaching orgasm. Lastly, this narrative review serves as a reminder that ableist, patriarchal, and heteronormative epistemologies must evolve to better capture the experiences of diverse populations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Collections→Same topicSpinal Cord Injury Research→French-language works237,207→