The journey of sexuality after spinal cord injury: Implications for allied health professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this phenomenological study, which reflected the lived experiences of seven individuals living in Alberta with spinal cord injury (SCI), was to gain insights into how individuals with SCI (a) are ill-equipped after injury with respect to post-injury sexual function education, (b) explore their sexuality after injury, (c) learn about the importance of role models and friends living with similar injuries, and (d) explain barriers to access reasonable care surrounding sexual health and counselling reflective of intersectionality of sexuality and disability, among other factors. The intent is also to provide a basis for others living with SCI to be aware that they are not alone in their experiences as well as inform others, including professionals working in the area of SCI, of what some experiences of living with SCI are. This study uncovered real lived experiences of individuals with SCI and their experience of sexuality and relationships after injury. Recommendations are highlighted with the intention of informing professionals, including counselling psychologists and other health related professionals.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".