Sex: What Is the Big Deal? Exploring Individuals’ with Intellectual Disabilities Experiences with Sex Education
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article offers perspectives shared by self-advocates in the first phase of a community-based participatory research project untaken to address barriers that individuals with intellectual disabilities face with respect to sexual health knowledge. Using descriptive qualitative methods, we interviewed 19 individuals with intellectual disability about their experiences and knowledge related to sexual health. The research question guiding this project was: What are self-advocates' with intellectual disabilities experiences learning about sexual health and sexuality? The findings highlight that participants faced barriers and lack of access to sexual health education, and while they learned about sexual health through formal sexual health education, frequently this knowledge came through lived experience. Finally, the findings underscore that participants knew what they wanted with respect to sexual health education and offered recommendations. The importance of accessible sexual health education for self-advocates that supports their rights and desires to express their sexuality and sexual agency is highlighted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it