MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133026082

The Sexual Subjectivity of Youth with Physical Disabilities: An Arts-Based Study in Toronto, Canada

2024· dissertation· W7133026082 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Madison Leigh Giles

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2024
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualitySubjectivityThematic analysisReflexivityPain and pleasurePleasurePhysical disabilityQualitative research
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundYouth with physical disabilities are often perceived as sexually vulnerable, incapable, or abnormal and sexuality information and support are therefore restricted. As a result, youth with physical disabilities may struggle to develop and assert their sexual subjectivity. To better understand the sexual subjectivity of youth with physical disabilities, we conducted a critical qualitative arts-based study. MethodsThe arts-based method of body map storytelling was used. Youth with physical disabilities (13 – 21 years) in Toronto, Canada engaged in virtual interviews while creating a map of their bodies. A critical visual methodology guided the interpretation and integration of the visual and verbal data, alongside a reflexive thematic analysis of the verbal data. ResultsEleven youth with physical disabilities participated, who were diverse across disability, race, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Youth with physical disabilities were rarely able to access disability-specific sexuality information and therefore had to form their sexual subjectivity alone. Some participants found support in countercultural spaces (e.g., 2SLGBTQIA+ communities), which were typically online. Their sexuality was validated in these spaces because differences were embraced rather than stigmatized and excluded. Youth with physical disabilities often experienced constant pain, so they had to find ways to integrate it into their sexual subjectivity. For some participants, markers of their pain (e.g., scars) became markers of their strength and sexiness. In contrast, pleasure was framed as their responsibility to others and not considered for themselves. ConclusionThe sexual subjectivity of youth with physical disabilities was restricted by society, where they were seen as vulnerable and therefore, not as sexual beings. Youth in our study had to navigate this desexualization and find creative ways to form their sexual subjectivity. To support the sexuality of youth with physical disabilities, their invisibility at the social structural level must be addressed and they must be integrated into the social imaginary as valuable and desirable sexual beings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207