Advancing an Ethic of Embodied Relational Sexuality to Guide Decision-Making in Dementia Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexuality and intimacy are universal needs that transcend age, cognitive decline, and disability; sexuality is a fundamental aspect of the human experience. However, supporting sexuality in long-term residential care presents ethical challenges as this setting is both a home environment for residents and a workplace for health practitioners. This is particularly complex in the case of residents with dementia given the need to balance protection from harm and freedom of self-determination. Despite such complexity, this challenge has received limited critical theoretical attention. The dominant approach advocated to guide ethical reasoning is the bioethical four principles approach. However, the application of this approach in the context of dementia and long-term care may set the bar for practitioners' interference excessively high, restricting assentual (i.e., voluntary) sexual expression. Furthermore, it privileges cognitive and impartial decision-making, while disregarding performative, embodied, and relational aspects of ethical reasoning. With an interest in addressing these limitations, we explicate an alternative ethic of embodied relational sexuality that is grounded in a model of citizenship that recognizes relationality and the agential status of embodied self-expression. This alternative ethic broadens ethical reasoning from the exclusive duty to protect individuals from harm associated with sexual expression, to the duty to also uphold and support their rights to experience the benefits of sexual expression (e.g., pleasure, intimacy). As such it has the potential to inform the development of policies, organizational guidelines, and professional curricula to support the sexuality of persons with dementia, and thereby ensure more humane practices in long-term residential care settings.
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 | 0.040 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| 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".