Research and evaluation in sexuality education: an allegorical exploration of complexities and possibilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defining ‘success’ in sexuality education solely in terms of quantitative outcome measures is woefully inadequate. All too often, such measures presuppose and perpetuate a narrow and overly instrumental view of sexuality and education. Research and evaluation favouring quantitative measures of effectiveness tend to amplify short‐term results and mediocre ends at the expense of more substantive insight into the complexities and nuances of human action and good practice. The paper begins with a true story involving a teenager and high‐risk behaviours. This story serves as a basis for an allegorical exploration of programme development, goals and vision. The allegory offers a context for thinking about the importance of research and evaluation methods that focus on expressive action, agency and symbolic metaphorical thinking as opposed to measurable behaviours and linear logical thinking.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.323 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".