“It's just more complicated!”: Experiences of adults with intellectual disabilities when navigating digital sexual fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory qualitative study analyzes narratives to understand how adults with intellectual disabilities navigate the digital sexual fields available to them, given the barriers and constraints in their lives. There is a paucity of research that has looked at the experiences of people with intellectual disabilities when navigating digital sexual fields in their pursuit of romance and partnership. This paper draws on a larger qualitative inquiry with adults with intellectual disabilities (n = 46) in Ontario, Canada, focused on their romantic and sexual lives. In all, 15 participants discussed their views on and participation in a variety of dating websites and mobile applications. Their experiences of digital sexual fields were analyzed. This study uses a sexual fields framework informed by Bourdieusian field theory to explore how participants negotiate these digital spaces, whether and how they choose to disclose their disability status, how they manage their self-presentation, and how they attempt to articulate their sexual capital. For these participants, digital sexual fields have provided a unique opportunity to pursue potential intimate relationships in the face of social isolation and protectionism. At the same time, their experiences also highlight existing barriers to access and forms of ableism within digital sexual fields. Based on these exploratory findings, we contribute to the growing corpus and suggest that more research be conducted and resources allocated to supporting adults with intellectual disabilities to form intimate relationships in an increasingly digital world.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".