Attitudes towards Sexuality, Sterilization and Parenting Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Methods We review articles pertaining to attitudes towards sexuality, sterilization, procreation and parenting by people with intellectual disabilities. Most empirical studies were conducted after the appearance of the principles of normalization and role valorization in the 1970s. Results Across studies, special education teachers and university students appear to hold more positive attitudes towards sexuality and sexuality education programs than parents and service workers. People with intellectual disabilities have conservative attitudes towards sexual intercourse and homosexuality, but may be accepting intimate contact by familiar persons. Despite the ban on involuntary sterilization, it appears that many parents and teachers of persons with intellectual disabilities still support it as a form of contraception, especially for persons with severe intellectual disabilities. Likewise, attitudes towards parenting by persons with intellectual disabilities remain negative, and these attitudes may adversely affect the provision of competency‐enhancing supports and services for parents with intellectual disabilities and their children. Conclusions It is recommended that new studies should be undertaken, comparing attitudes across different groups involved with persons with intellectual disabilities and examining the impact of prejudicial attitudes on sexual expression and parenting by persons with intellectual disabilities.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".