Not My Kid: What Parents Believe about the Sex Lives of Their Teenagers By Sinikka Elliott New York University Press. 2012. 224 pages. $22 paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the controversies that surround sex education in US public schools, parents are often seen as an obstacle to their child's education. This belief rests on an assumption that parents are, in general, conservative and oppose efforts to provide meaningful sex education for their children; however, polls consistently find that American parents support comprehensive sex education in schools. Neither view tells the whole story. Sinikka Elliott's recent study, Not My Kid: What Parents Believe about the Sex Lives of Their Teenagers, complicates this division: what parents think about their teen's sexuality and how they understand sexuality education turns out to be complex, ambivalent, and highly conflicted. In some ways, the conflict is predictable: parents don't want their teens to have sex before marriage or some other marker of adulthood, but they also don't believe their own advice and so want their teens to be responsible if they do decide to have sex before then. In conversations with almost 50 parents, representing a diverse range of families, and all living in a liberal city in a conservative state, the parents, mostly mothers, discussed their feelings about their teenage children growing up and becoming sexually active. Elliott's study sets out to investigate how social structures shape family life, but she ends up also registering the intense bonds that parents make to and with their children and the ways that sexuality—seen as always looming on the horizon—threatens to undo those bonds. The stories Elliott is able to tell are emotionally dense.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".