MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Attitudes of Social Service Providers towards the Sexuality of Individuals with Intellectual Disability

2006· article· en· W2065648832 on OpenAlexaff
Giuseppe Bazzo, Laura Nota, Salvatore Soresi, Lea Ferrari, Patricia Minnes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual disabilityHuman sexualityService providerPsychologyService (business)Affect (linguistics)Medical model of disabilitySocial psychologyPsychiatrySociologyBusinessMarketingGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The sexual lives of people with intellectual disability is made complex by the involvement and influence of social service providers, whose beliefs and values have a great impact on the support they provide. We hypothesized that social service providers’ role, educational level and service in which they worked could affect attitudes towards the sexual behaviour of individuals with intellectual disability. Materials and methods The current study describes attitudes of social service providers towards the sexuality of individuals with disability measured by 20 items of Sexuality and Mental Retardation Attitudes Inventory (SMRAI). This instrument was devised by Brantlinger [Mental Retardation (1983) Vol. 21, pp. 17–22] to assess the attitudes of the staff employed by organizations that supplied services to individuals with intellectual disability. Specifically, analysis of variance (type of service × professional role × education) was performed on participants’ scores. Results Results suggested that the social service providers participating in this research study tended to have moderately liberal attitudes. Educational level and role carried out did not produce differences in their attitudes. A significant difference emerged between those who operated in different services. It was especially the staff of the outpatient treatment services who revealed the most liberal and positive attitudes towards the sexuality of individuals with intellectual disability. Conclusions The data reported in the present study seem to underline some differences between the data collected from the Italian and the Anglo‐Saxon social service providers. Failure to record influences associated with the role carried out and previous training could be related to the different contextual differences. Results suggest that particular attention should be paid to the training of those who hold managerial posts in Italian residential services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations81
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207