Susan K Freeman. Sex Goes to School: Girls and Sex Education before the 1960s.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the jaunty title, Sex Goes to School, and an introductory promise "to offer a deeper understanding of the dynamic process of sex education" along with a shift "to consider adolescents' perspectives and contributions along with those of educators" (x), this book tempts a reader with possibilities.There is no doubt that Susan Freeman has done an admirable job of scouring the sources to produce an examination of the changing intent and orientation of sex education in the 1940s and 1950s in the United States.Whether the book delivers on its initial promise, however, is another matter.Sex Goes to School is a short monograph that begins by looking at the transition from a strictly biological and health-based sex education curriculum to one situated more fully in studies of family life, psychological adjustment and happy heterosexual relationships.While this argument about a move from a more morally certain age to a therapeutic present is not new to educational historians, Freeman's tracing of this history is useful and thorough.Her identification of the disagreements and conflicts that would erode the majority support for school-based sex education that she claims was present in the mid-twentieth century is thought-provoking.Once the stage has been set, the book moves to a closer examination of the ways in which sex education was developed as curriculum.In the strongest, but too short, chapter in the book, three cases are used to explore the newly developed and more open approaches to sex education of the mid-twentieth-century.While acknowledging differences among those active in leading and implementing the new sex education courses in Oregon state, Toms River, New Jersey and San Diego, California, Freeman offers a relatively clear sense of what might actually have happened in the three school jurisdictions selected.In using these examples, she provides the kind of
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".