Regulating, fostering and preserving: the production of sexual normates through cognitive ableism and cognitive othering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
in the form of desirable and normative able-minded sexual subjects, in scientific research on the sexuality and cognitive disabilities of younger and older individuals (in particular those with dementia). We identify three interrelated discourses: regulating sexuality; fostering sexuality; and preserving sexuality. The first of these, regulation, pathologises sexuality of people with cognitive disabilities as faulty and in need of restriction. The second discourse, fostering, is more affirmative and argues for educating for a 'healthy' sexuality of people with cognitive disabilities, to mitigate risks of abuse. This discourse is more salient with younger people. The third discourse, preservation, in contrast, is more visible with older people with dementia and affirms sexuality so long as it is consistent with a 'genuine' or 'authentic' sexuality of the past. In conclusion, scientific research reinforces the cultural ideal of the rational and autonomous individual (and as such the mature/adult) capable of making independent decisions and engaging in healthy, good sex, based on stable sexual identities. Findings demonstrate how age intersects with cognitive ableism to intensify the cultural anxiety that exists around the sexualities of people with cognitive disabilities.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".