<i>Romance, Relationships, and Rights</i> : Ethical Considerations and Dilemmas in a Research-Based Theater Project With Self-Advocate Co-Creators and Actors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are often excluded from conversations about sexual health; when included, well-meaning researchers and support workers often speak for individuals instead of creating opportunities for their voices to be heard. To support the sexual agency of people with intellectual disabilities, who refer to themselves as self-advocates (SAs), we embarked on a Research-based Theater (RbT) project, Romance, Relationships, and Rights, with the goal to address misconceptions of individuals with IDD and sexuality. Throughout the project, ethical tensions percolated from ableist assumptions about “legal capacity,” consent both on and off stage, and conflicting perspectives on aesthetics. Throughout this article, we discuss these ethical dilemmas and offer recommendations for future work with SAs in co-creating RbT through the lens of disability justice and critical disability studies.
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 | 0.086 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".