“Ah, Ah, Ah, You’ve Got to Stop That!”: A Foucauldian Analysis of Disciplinary Power Over Resident Sexual Expression in Alberta’s Continuing Care Homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I outline empirical findings from a study of resident sexual expression in continuing care homes in Alberta, Canada, and discuss them with reference to Michel Foucault’s thinking about disciplinary power. The data come from a two-phase exploratory qualitative study of sexual expression in Alberta’s continuing care homes. Phase 1 included semi-structured interviews with care home managers and individuals whom they consult ( n = 28). Phase 2 included interviews with care home residents and family members ( n = 20). I re-analyzed this (Alzheimer 2018)–2019 data through a Foucauldian lens. I discuss (1) the surveillance of residents in care homes and the normalization of certain forms of sexual expression through the processes of examination and judgment; (2) perceptions of deviance in resident sexual expression; and (3) forms of punishment for sexual expression. Continuing care homes can serve as sites for the policing of resident sexuality and producing normative prescriptions. The norms privileged heterosexual relationships, activities between married monogamous couples, and the expressions of individuals with full cognitive capacity. Staff and family members jointly participated in monitoring sexual expression and enforcing these expectations. There is a need for care standards at the provincial level to recognize sexual expression as a human right, an activity of daily living, and an element of human flourishing across the lifespan. Such standards should be accompanied by site-level policies and related training and education for healthcare staff.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".