MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916093715 · doi:10.1111/bld.12264

An ethical inquiry of support workers' experiences related to sexuality in the context of intellectual disabilities in Quebec, Canada

2019· article· en· W2916093715 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pierre Pariseau‐Legault, Dave Holmes, Guillaume Ouellet, Sandrine Vallée‐Ouimet

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Learning Disabilities · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersMinistère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsHuman sexualityIntellectual disabilityContext (archaeology)PsychologyInterpretative phenomenological analysisSocial psychologyQualitative researchSociologyGender studiesPsychiatrySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accessible summary Support workers' attitudes towards the sexuality of people with intellectual disabilities are important. They can influence the support people with intellectual disabilities receive regarding their affective and sexual life. Six support workers talked about their personal experiences. They talked about what they found easy and difficult when helping people with intellectual disabilities express their sexual life and needs. They said that sexuality is a right, a health matter and an important need. They also said it was sometimes difficult to include sexuality in their work. They also said they often feel insecure and uncertain about how to help because sexuality is a difficult subject to talk about. They wanted to help people make their own decisions, but also wanted to protect them if needed. Abstract Background In the last decade, the evolution of support workers' attitudes towards the affective and sexual lives of people with intellectual disabilities has been described as increasingly positive. However, restrictive attitudes targeting affective and sexual life are still documented. Material and methods This study aimed to explore the ethical implications of support workers' experiences concerning sexuality in the context of intellectual disabilities in everyday practice. This inquiry was guided by the following research questions: (a) In the context of intellectual disabilities, what meanings do service users' sexuality have for support workers? (b) How are those meanings translated into practice? Inspired by critical phenomenology, in‐depth individual interviews with support workers were conducted and analysed. Results One superordinate theme (Negotiating Interventions) and three themes were identified: “Crossing Organizational Borders,” “A Duty to Act Despite Uncertainty” and “Navigating Competing and Contradictory Discourses.” Conclusion Support workers' experiences related to sexuality in the context of intellectual disabilities are influenced by how they define their role in a clinical context. This role is influenced by how affective and sexual life is included in practices, local policies and interdisciplinary work. Despite positive attitudinal changes, sexuality is still regarded as a sensitive topic capable of endangering both service users and support workers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Learning DisabilitiesSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207