Parents’ Participation in the Sexuality Education of Their Children in Namibia: A Framework and an Educational Programme for Enhanced Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to empower rural parents to participate in the sexuality education of their children. The study was designed to be qualitative, explorative, descriptive and contextual in nature. It was performed in three phases. Phase 1 consisted of a situational analysis to explore and describe how parents provide sexuality education. Phase 2 consisted of the development of a conceptual framework that facilitated the development of an educational programme. In phase 3 the programme was implemented and evaluated, recommendations were made and conclusions drawn. The main findings revealed two themes: factors influencing parental participation in their children's sexuality education, and the need for parental participation in their children's sexuality education. This article is part of series of three article stems from a study on the topic of sexuality education empowerment programme of rural parents in Namibia. The three articles have the following titles: one: parent's participation in sexuality education of their children: a situational analysis; two: parent's participation in sexuality education of their children: a conceptual framework and an educational programme to enhance action, and three: parent's participation in sexuality education of their children: programme implementation and evaluation. The previous paper dealt with parent's participation in sexuality education of their children: a situational analysis: the results from the in-depth interviews and focus group discussions on sexuality education with children and parents were presented. This paper focuses on describing Phase 2 and 3, namely the process of devising a conceptual framework for the development of an educational programme to empower parents to participate in the sexuality education of their children. Discussions included a description of the conceptual framework, based on the researcher's paradigmatic assumptions, and the focus group and individual in-depth interviews results. The survey list suggested by Dickoff et al. (1968) consists of various elements which were employed in the conceptual framework, namely the context, agent, recipients, dynamics, procedure and a terminus. These elements were reflected in the "thinking map".
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".