MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396675928 · doi:10.1017/s0714980824000163

Sexual Expression in Long-Term Care Institutions: Are We Ready for the Baby Boomer Generation?

2024· article· en· W4396675928 on OpenAlexaffabout
Angela Priede, Elke D. Reissing

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreparednessHuman sexualityBaby boomersContext (archaeology)Long-term carePsychologyGerontologyMedicineNursingPolitical scienceSociologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Baby boomers were at the forefront of profound social changes in sexual attitudes and many have expressed a desire to remain sexually active throughout their life course. The purpose of this survey study was to assess the perceived preparedness of Ontario's long-term care (LTC) homes to meet the changing sexuality needs and expectations of LTC residents. We examined sexuality-related attitudes, including in the context of dementia, among 150 LTC administrators. Participants also completed a questionnaire assessing their experiences and perceptions regarding existing and anticipated supports, barriers, and priorities. Most participants demonstrated positive sexual attitudes; however, multiple challenges to meeting residents' sexuality needs were noted, including assessing capacity to consent, limited privacy, staff training, conflicting attitudes, and a lack of adequate policy and guidelines. Challenges are broad and significant and considerable attention is required to meet the expectations of the next generation of LTC residents, including gender and sexual minority elders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207