Fitting comfortably together: Doing and imagining gender and sexuality in personal assistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports a UK study in which 12 young disabled adults took part in in-depth qualitative interviews that explored how gender and sexuality mattered for their personal assistance. We draw on queer, trans, and disabled feminist research and theory to discuss the ways that genders and sexualities are part of the decisions that young disabled adults make when arranging and managing their personal support, from drafting support plans and recruitment adverts to working out how to share personal space and display the body. We discuss how gender and sexuality are part of the interactions that young disabled adults imagine as necessary for them and their personal assistants (PAs) to be able to work together. The article also offers a creative approach to representing the data. Composed from young disabled adults’ words following a grounded theory analysis of the data, vignettes were developed to respond to ethical challenges of representing the stories of disabled queer, trans, and nonbinary young people. The article ends by discussing the ethical work of enabling gendered and sexual lives through personal assistance. The project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Social Care.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".