Commentary: Promoting healthy adolescent development through comprehensive sexuality education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ICPD Programme of Action and many intergovernmental agreements since have agreed that all adolescents, in and out of school, have a right to and must have access to comprehensive sexuality education (CSE).This CSE must include not only human biology and HIV, but must also address puberty, sexuality, where and how to access sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services, including referral when needed, and skills development for relationships based on gender equality, respect for human rights and for diversity, and the use of critical thinking (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2009).Promising interventions exist in a number of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, across Latin America, in Pakistan and in some states of India.These programmes are provided to both boys and girls, either separately or together, recognising that fundamental improvements in the lives of girls and young women require changes in the attitudes and behaviours of boys and men that perpetuate gender inequality and power imbalances.Although 'gold standard' evaluations of the impacts of such programmes are few, a number of qualitative studies, including the examples below, suggest that interventions delivered according to the UNESCO standards increase awareness and change attitudes on gender equality and power structures, at least in the short run.Regardless of the paucity of impact assessments, every child and adolescent from the earliest possible age has a right to information and education (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1990) about these key aspects of their lives.Examples of promising programmes include
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".