Using the Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis Framework to Evaluate a Policy Supporting Sexual Health and Intimacy in Long-Term Care, Assisted Living, Group Homes & Supported Housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexuality is an integral part of being human throughout life. This does not change when moving into long-term care (LTC). However, the sexual health of persons living in LTC is often overlooked. This paper presents an analysis of the recently released health organizational policy: Supporting Sexual Health and Intimacy in Long-Term Care, Assisted Living, Group Homes & Supported Housing. The Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis Framework is used to outline the policy problem, examine how this policy was developed, and evaluate its potential to address the problem. Key findings are that both the development process and the policy constructs align with principles of intersectionality, such as equity, reflexivity, and diverse knowledges. In conclusion, this analysis suggests this policy is feasible, equitable and could effectively address sexual health for persons living in LTC, while leading to an improved workplace for staff. We recommend that this policy be more widely adopted across Canada.
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 | 0.068 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".