The Romantic and Sexual Lives of Adults with Intellectual Disability in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intersection of disability and sexuality remains a taboo topic. Along with this taboo, people with intellectual disabilities are rarely afforded the opportunity to share their experiences and desires when it comes to their intimate lives. This research examines the romantic and sexual lives of adults with intellectual disabilities in Ontario, Canada, by putting into conversation theories from the sociology of sexualities and critical disability studies. It uses a sexual fields analytic framework (Green, 2014) to explore the consequences of sexual stratification on the experiences of disabled people. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 46 adults with intellectual disabilities, this research explores how they are kept out of sexual fields through a series of disabling social processes. It also examines how participants make sense of their gender and sexual identities based on gender habitus acquired in their lives and how they are often confined to “hetero-romantic” forms of sexual expression and traditional gender roles. Finally, this project explores how participants navigate the sexual fields available to them and their strategies for negotiating those fields. This research brings to view previously unexplored sexual fields within the existing sexual fields literature. I discuss what I call intellectual disability sexual fields, spaces exclusively for people with intellectual disabilities, as well as more mainstream sexual fields.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".