MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970224951 · doi:10.18061/dsq.v39i3.6383

"I don't know if I can talk about that": An Exploratory Study on the Experiences of Care Workers Regarding the Sexuality of People with Intellectual Disabilities

2019· article· en· W2970224951 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alan Santinele Martino, Jordyn Perreault-Laird

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability Studies Quarterly · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExploratory researchHuman sexualityPower (physics)PsychologyIntellectual disabilityCare workWork (physics)SociologyGender studiesSocial psychologySocial sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This exploratory study examined the attitudes and experiences of a small sample of direct care workers' experiences of addressing the sexual expression and practices of their clients with intellectual disabilities. Drawing on in-depth interviews with direct care workers in Alberta, Canada, we use Foucault's work to examine the way power is exercised through organizational policies, personal values, and employment contexts. Altogether, the accounts of direct care workers seem to illuminate a culture that commonly sees disability and sexuality as antithetical and a topic to be avoided for fear of reprisal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.023
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability Studies QuarterlySame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207