Rural Secondary School Teachers’ Capacity to Respond to Hiv and Aids: The Case of Shurugwi District in Zimbabwe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young people often turn to their teachers for information on sexuality and HIV and Aids. Consequently teachers need to be not only knowledgeable about these issues but also able to integrate them into their teaching. As part of an umbrella study to investigate and promote HIV and Aids education and support in schools, this article reports on a qualitative study conducted among a purposively selected sample of teachers in Shurugwi schools to ascertain their response to the challenges resulting from the pandemic. The findings suggest that the participating teachers held complex and contradictory views about HIV and Aids education; that they were constrained by the prevailing social and cultural background; and that their responses were inhibited by the lack of adequate social welfare support systems. These factors combined to make it difficult for them to interpret and implement policy that calls for a coherent and collaborative response. This study will hopefully inform professional development interventions to ensure that future HIV and AIDS teaching and learning is relevant and effective, given the social and educational context.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".