Amour et dépendances : attachements, handicaps et travail social [Dossier]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis quelques annees une large tribune porte sur la place publique le debat de l'acces a la vie affective et sexuelle des personnes en situation de handicaps. Si tous s'accordent pour affirmer que la vie affective et sexuelle est une composante essentielle de l'equilibre de tout etre humain, que l'evocation de la sexualite des personnes en situation de handicap n'est plus aussi taboue que par le passe, elle reste cependant un sujet sensible pour les professionnels qui accompagnent ces personnes en institution. Le dossier s'attache a montrer, par la mise en perspective d'experiences, d'actions menees en France et dans d'autres pays, la Suisse, la Belgique, le Canada, ce qui evolue dans les representations collectives. La premiere partie du document donne le cadre symbolique, representatif, social et sous son aspect legal, dans le cadre d'institutions, de l'amour entre personnes en situation de handicap. La seconde partie presente l'accompagnement affectif, notamment d'adolescents, en service de sante, vers la sexualite : decouverte des emotions, de la seduction et de sentiments transgressifs. La derniere partie porte sur l'education sexuelle, notamment avec l'assistance sexuelle des personnes ayant des incapacites et la question des malades d'alzheimer. Dossier.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".