Parents’ Participation in the Sexuality Education of Their Children in Rural Namibia: A Situational Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Talking about sexuality has never been easy in most Namibians cultures and it seems that most parents feel uncomfortable and embarrassed to talk openly with their children about sexuality. They do not participate in the sexuality education of their children, because they believe they are unable to provide quality and adequate sexuality information due to their lack of knowledge about human sexuality or their perceived inability to explain what they do know. The ultimate purpose of this study was to develop, describe, implement and evaluate an educational programme 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: conceptual framework developments that facilitate the development of an educational programme and three: programme implementation and evaluation. This article dealt with parent's participation in sexuality education of their children: a situational analysis.
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 | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".