L’exercice des droits et l’émancipation sexuelle des personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle : une éthique de la citoyenneté
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’amélioration de la vie sexuelle des personnes en situation de handicap (PSH) et des personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle (personnes DI) exige non seulement la transformation des organisations de services et des pratiques professionnelles, mais elle repose avant tout sur un dialogue permanent entre les acteurs concernés, incluant au premier chef, les personnes DI. Dans le cadre du « Programme international d’éducation à la citoyenneté démocratique » (PIECD), par, pour et avec des personnes ayant un handicap mental, intellectuel ou physique, la question des droits sexuels est apparue comme l’un des enjeux majeurs de l’émancipation des personnes DI. Bien que plusieurs acteurs de la société civile aient contribué à l’émergence d’un nouveau paradigme émancipatoire, fondé sur la reconnaissance et l’exercice effectif des droits des personnes en situation de handicap, il est essentiel que les PSH et les personnes DI soient entendues et participent à la transformation culturelle, éthique, politique, organisationnelle ou professionnelle en cours, parce que la reconnaissance des droits sexuels s’inscrit dans l’univers politique de la citoyenneté et de l’engagement civique. De la prise de parole à l’action politique en passant par la transformation sociale, les personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle doivent parcourir encore un long chemin et la société doit envisager des mutations importantes, afin qu’elles puissent exercer individuellement et collectivement l’ensemble de leurs droits. Improving the sexual lives of people with disabilities (PWDs) and people with an intellectual disability (ID) requires not only changes in the service organizations and professional practices, but it is primarily based on an ongoing dialogue between stakeholders, including first and foremost, people with ID. Under the “International Education Program for Democratic Citizenship” by, for and with individuals with a mental, intellectual or physical disability, the issue of sexual rights has emerged as one of the major challenges empowering people with ID. Although several stakeholders have contributed to the emergence of a new emancipatory paradigm, based on the recognition and exercise of rights of people with disabilities, it is essential that PWDs and people with ID be heard and participate in the cultural, ethical, political, organizational or professional ongoing changes because the recognition of sexual rights is part of the political universe of citizenship and civic engagement. From words to political action through social changes, people with intellectual disabilities still have a long way to go and society has to consider major changes, so they can individually and collectively exercise all their rights.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".