CLINICAL APPLICATIONS FOR SEXUAL EXPRESSION POLICY AND PROCEDURES IN LONG-TERM CARE HOMES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual expression is a complex clinical issue within residential care. The noted lack of policies and training for staff and administration has resulted in practices that are often prohibitive with a nursing home setting, and may not support the resident(s) rights and needs for intimacy. This presentation presents a clinical point of view on sexual expression in long-term care, highlighting case illustrations and the development of a resident-centered policy within a long-term care network in Ontario, Canada. Cases will review common challenges in supporting sexual expression for residents, such as resident-to-resident relationships (where one or both have a spouse/partner), a spouse/partner visiting the nursing home resident and engaging in sexual/intimate behavior, and examples of how different behavioural expressions are (mis)perceived as having sexual intent and suppressed by administration/staff. These cases will discussed in light of the policy and procedures developed as part of the Lanark, Leeds, and Grenville working group.
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 | 0.063 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".