“I’m worthy of having experiences just like everybody else”: exploring sexual well-being among young disabled people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual well-being is an integral part of human well-being. However, sexual well-being remains understudied among young disabled people, and there is a lack of consensus on conceptualizing sexual well-being to guide programs, research, and policy. This study helps to fill this gap by exploring sexual well-being among young disabled people in Ontario, Canada. Twenty-four interviews were conducted with young people who have previous experience with a social worker. Participants discussed how they conceptualize sexual well-being, how their meanings of sexual well-being have changed over time, and the intersection of disability and sexual well-being in their lives. Meanings of sexual well-being were shaped using a sex-positive perspective. Participants provided insights into how the desexualization of disabled people impacts their sexual well-being by perpetuating internalized ableism and shame. The findings highlight the importance of designing, delivering, and implementing anti-ableist services and education that are accessible and suitable for disabled young people.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".