Mediated pathways, negotiated identities: a critical phenomenological analysis of the experience of sexuality in the context of intellectual disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Questions of sexuality and intellectual disability have now moved beyond the institutional era, and contemporary sexual health interventions have gradually been reconfigured in terms of social participation, partnership and normalising approaches. That being said, they also appear to be part of a complex negotiation process between support systems for individuals identified as having an intellectual disability. The aim of this study was to provide a better understanding of the experience of affective (sentimental and emotional) and sexual (identity and value-mediated) expression in the context of intellectual disability, as well as related factors of influence. Inspired by a critical theoretical framework and a phenomenological methodology, this research shows that these experiences are part of a negotiation process that is simultaneously systemic and intimate. It is systemic because it responds to knowledge systems specific to intellectual disability and sexuality, thus authorising a variety of interventions focused on normalising the individual. It is also intimate because these practices involve every axis of affective existence, from inhabiting restrictive spaces to reconfiguring people’s intimate relationships with themselves and others. Through these findings, nursing’s ability to recognise and advocate for this group’s sexual needs and rights is called into question.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".