La santé sexuelle en contexte de handicap intellectuel : une recension narrative des écrits et ses implications pour les soins infirmiers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issues associated with affectivity and sexuality in the context of intellectual disability have recently been the subject of various interdisciplinary discussions in academia. In nursing, interventions in sexual health are supported with hesitation and those issues constitute a marginal field of nursing research. A narrative literature review was realized in order to establish a portrait of the knowledge produced on this topic in the last decade. This paper illustrates three specific research areas recently developed, namely issues related to sexual autonomy, contextual factors positively or negatively contributing to emotional and sexual life, and the experiences of people identified as having an intellectual disability in this regard. On the basis of these results, different issues related to sexuality and intellectual disability are discussed, including those associated with the negotiation process of affective and sexual life, parenthood as a mediator of emotional and sexual expression, and the inclusiveness issues of sexual diversity in health interventions. Implications for nursing are finally discussed in light of the recent development of its role in sexual health.
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 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 | 0.040 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".