MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036454151 · doi:10.1111/ajag.12744

Sexuality and ageing in palliative care environments? Breaking the (triple) taboo

2020· article· en· W3036454151 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal on Ageing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTabooHuman sexualityPalliative careGerontologyPopulation ageingLongevitySketchExpression (computer science)PsychologyAsexualityDiseasePopulationMedicineNursingGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ageist perceptions continue to constrain the choices available to older adults in terms of their sexual expression. OBJECTIVE: This paper discusses the last stage of life, when older adults may be progressing through a terminal disease, dying and in palliative care environments. Are they (or is anyone, at any age) interested in remaining intimate when they are dying? If yes, how is this interest accepted/facilitated within such environments?. RESULTS: This article does not claim to be definitive, but provides a broad, preliminary sketch of this neglected research area. It suggests that, for many, sexual expression and intimate connection continue to be important until the very end of the lifespan. CONCLUSIONS: As such, this important topic deserves recognition as part of an overall response to sexuality and ageing by policy makers and health professionals. Its importance will only become more significant due to greater longevity and population ageing.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.257 · 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