Disability, Sexual Health, and Participatory Video: Advocating for Sexual Rights
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This action research study addresses sexual health as a critical human rights issue in the disability community. Twelve participants engaged in the co-creation and editing of a series of videos about the dimensions of sexual rights as experienced and understood by persons with developmental disabilities. The participants also uploaded the videos onto digital platforms and took on the role of community educators while incorporating their videos into their larger advocacy campaign.This article begins with a brief review of the literature on sexual health and disability, noting there is a paucity of research that considers storied narratives when exploring the topic of sexual rights and disablement. Drawing on critical disability theory and Freirean pedagogy, the second section explores how a group of adults with developmental disabilities used participatory video as an advocacy tool in disrupting colonial voices through reclaiming histories and leading discussions about their sexual rights. Further implications and limitations to this study are also addressed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it