Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Analyze literature on the promotion and guarantee of sexual rights for older adults from a gender-based, intercultural, and intersectional approach. Methodology: An exploratory integrative review was conducted in five stages: 1) Problem identification guided by the SPIDER question framework; 2) Bibliographic search according to the PRISMA flowchart; 3) Evaluation of the quality of the studies using SANRA; 4) Analysis using Atlas.ti software; and 5) Presentation of the results. Results: Three categories emerged 47 papers: 1) Structural and health system elements focus on service access, medical training, and health policies on sexuality in old age; 2) social and cultural elements related to norms, taboos, and stigmatization; and 3) individual elements centered on personal factors such as beliefs, experiences, and physical and mental health status. Conclusions: To address sexuality in older adults, it is important to eliminate aging prejudices and stigmas. The guarantee of sexual rights at this stage of life demands inclusive health systems with policies on education, prevention, and diversity. The implementation of a gender, intercultural, and intersectional approach is important to promoting dignified and healthy development.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".