Factors associated with middle school students' perceptions of the quality of school-based sexual health education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines factors associated with middle school students' perceptions of the quality of the sexual health education (SHE) they received at school. Participants were 478 predominately White young people (256 girls, 222 boys) in grades 6–8 who completed a survey assessing their demographic characteristics; dating and sexual experience; and perceptions of the content, delivery and quality of the SHE they had received. Boys and students in a lower grade and with less sexual experience rated the quality of their SHE more positively. After accounting for student characteristics, students who more strongly agreed that their SHE matched their interests and covered sexual health topics more adequately, as well as who viewed their teacher as being more comfortable talking about sexual topics and doing a better job answering questions, reported higher quality SHE. Students' perceptions of the adequacy of coverage of 10 sexual health topics were also positively correlated with their reports of higher quality SHE, although only two topics (correct names for genitals and puberty/physical development) contributed uniquely to the prediction of this variable. These results reinforce the need for a comprehensive SHE curriculum as well as adequate preparation of teachers if SHE is to be engaging to students.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".