MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969938077 · doi:10.1111/bld.12287

Supporting positive sexual health for persons with developmental disabilities: Stories about the right to love

2019· article· en· W2969938077 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kathleen C. Sitter, Amy C Burke, Sheliza Ladhani, Nicole Mallay

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Learning Disabilities · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyReproductive healthParticipatory action researchNature versus nurtureDevelopmental psychologyAgency (philosophy)MedicinePopulationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accessible Summary This research is about the sexual rights of persons with developmental disabilities. For 12 months, nine adults with developmental disabilities and three allies created videos about love and intimacy. The group found that family members, caregivers and support workers can make it hard for people with developmental disabilities to learn about and experience healthy relationships. This research is important because it promotes the experiences and perspectives of persons with developmental disabilities, which can hopefully lead to positive changes in attitudes and service delivery that support positive sexual health. Abstract Background Although sexual rights are human rights, persons with developmental disabilities are often excluded from developing positive sexual health due to societal attitudes, stigma, a lack of education and limited opportunities. Methods As a part of a 12‐month participatory action research study in a western Canadian province, nine adults with developmental disabilities and three allies created videos that explored the dimensions of sexual health as experienced by people with developmental disabilities. Participants were involved in all stages of the filming process. The filming topics identified by the participants emerged as the core research themes. Results Persons with developmental disabilities often have limited opportunities to develop and nurture intimate relationships. Participants also identified that: (a) a lack of support from caregivers, (b) a lack of education about sexual health, (c) ableist spaces and (d) the absence of agency policies that acknowledge and protect sexual rights create further obstacles. Conclusions Inclusive practices where the sexual rights of persons with developmental disabilities are respected and celebrated are critical in promoting positive sexual health. For many agencies, this requires reframing policies and programmes that include acknowledging and protecting the sexual rights of persons with developmental disabilities. While providing accessible pedagogical opportunities about sexual health was identified as important, ensuring curriculum delivery for support workers, as well as educating families and caregivers about the importance of sexual health and inclusion, is paramount, where the views and opinions of persons with developmental disabilities are at the forefront of the process.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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