A Review of the Literature on Sexual Development of Older Adults in Relation to the Asexual Stereotype of Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a prevalence of an asexual stereotype in regard to older adults. This paper reviews sexual development later in life from three different vantage points to explore why and how this stereotype exists. The vantage points are changes in social life, physical development, and psychological development. Older adults are often less engaged in society due to retirement, hence they have fewer opportunities to meet new partners. However now the internet is used a forum for older adults to meet new partners, so social barriers are easily overcome. Furthermore, the pervasive social influence of the media, reinforces and perpetuates the asexual stereotype in society by narrowly portraying older adults as asexual. Normative physical changes that come with aging, such as menopause and erectile dysfunction, are frequently assumed to lead to asexuality. This is not necessarily true- those that see physical changes as natural adapt their sexual lives accordingly. Psychological factors that effect sexuality in later life are the internalization of societies prescription of what ‘normal’ sex life is for older adults. As a result it is common for older adults to deprioritize sex as a means to conform to ‘norms’ regarding sex later in life.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".