Developing and testing a sex education program for the female clients of health centers in Iran
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study a matched intervention–control site design in 14 urban health centers with random selection of 160 participants (80 in each of intervention and control) was used to evaluate a sex education program in Iran. Qualitative methods were used in a needs assessment that also set the content and method of delivery of the program. The intervention consisted of training health providers to deliver a short educational program to female clients. Evaluation questionnaires were completed before and six weeks after the intervention. Analysis of the data showed no significant difference in demographic characteristics of the study and control groups. The program demonstrated a statistically significant impact on knowledge and attitudes. There was also a statistically significant change in intentions and behavior. This study showed that even in societies where people's religious and cultural background and strict rules and laws might seem to make sexual education an impossible task, choosing the location and target population based on cultural norms, and the educational content based on the target group's needs and cultural and religious background, can pave the road to success.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it