MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971323652 · doi:10.5430/wje.v1n2p126

Sexual Self-disclosure and Gender Consciousness of Undergraduate Students of Obafemi Awolowo University

2011· article· en· W1971323652 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sehinde A. Oluwatosin, Adeyemi Alaba ADEDIWURA

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySelf-disclosureAndrogynyClinical psychologyConsciousnessSignificant differenceDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMasculinityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study investigated gender consciousness and sexual self-disclosure of undergraduate students attending counseling sessions as well as gender difference in sexual self disclosure. Sixty (60) consenting undergraduates who had attended counseling session for sexual concerns in the last three months preceding this study period were used for the Snell (1996) were used to collect data for the study The results showed that the relationship between sexual self-disclosure to therapist and gender consciousness is a weak but positive relationship (Pearson and Kendal tau correlation coefficients: r=0.15 and 0.12, respectively). There was a significant but negative relationship between students’ sexual self-disclosure and the therapist sex (r= -0.52 and b =0.37). Also difference in sexual self disclosure between male and female clients showed a non significant t-test of t = 0.20. The study showed a trend in clients’ psychological androgyny (neither strongly male nor strongly female) inclination to gender consciousness and self-disclosure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207