Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article questionne de façon critique le concept de la santé sexuelle dans son évolution par rapport aux personnes âgées. Je m'inspire d'études sociales et culturelles sur le vieillissement, d’études féministes et de sciences et technologies pour établir un programme de recherche qui traite de la santé sexuelle en tant que point articulaire pour une gamme de technologies et de processus qui façonnent la vie sexuelle de milieu et de fin de vie. Un tel programme pourrait permettre d'explorer plus en profondeur les sites et les processus par lesquels les formes de sexualité sont façonnées, les types d'agentivités sexuelles («sexual agency») disponibles aux personnes âgées et la reconstruction contemporaine du parcours de la vie sexuelle. This paper critically interrogates the concept of sexual health as it has evolved in relation to older adults. I draw on social and cultural studies of aging, feminist studies, and science and technology studies to outline a research agenda which treats sexual health as a point of articulation for a range of technologies and processes which shape mid- and late-life sexualities. Such an agenda may be able to more fully interrogate the sites and processes by which sexualities are being shaped, the forms of sexual agency on offer to older people, and the contemporary reconstruction of sexual life courses.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it