I’m sorry. I really thought you understood that the papers you were discussing are exactly those that were used to build the table:
it starts with the wikipedia chart which has the ref note 80 linked here, which points to this, which in turn lists refs 76, 77, and 79 for P/V sex, which are (in order):
This entire conversation is definitely mostly a mistake. Nobody can possibly care enough about the answer to my original question, which was: “is the table misrepresenting the studies it’s built out of, or are you mistaken?”, in order to justify reading this crap.
I’m sorry. I really thought you understood that the papers you were discussing are exactly those that were used to build the table:
This entire conversation is definitely mostly a mistake. Nobody can possibly care enough about the answer to my original question, which was: “is the table misrepresenting the studies it’s built out of, or are you mistaken?”, in order to justify reading this crap.