Sexual health education in Newfoundland and Labrador schools: Junior high school teachers' experiences, coverage of topics, comfort levels and views about professional practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study sought to identify the experiences, topic coverage, comfort levels, views, and training of junior high school teachers responsible for teaching sexual health education in grades 7, 8, or 9 in Newfoundland and Labrador. All schools with these grades were invited to participate. Thirty- one teachers answered fixed measures and open-ended questions to elicit quantitative and qualitative data on the themes of interest. The findings identify a number of key issues affecting sexual health education in Newfoundland and Labrador These include: a general absence of pre-service and in-service training; outdated curricular resources; under-coverage of topics associated with pleasure, satisfaction, and behaviour; and a seeming lack of awareness of sexual diversity in the classroom and response to it despite apparent acceptance of and comfort with the topic. These and other findings are discussed in relation to the practice of teaching sexuai health education in Newfoundland and Labrador schools. Acknowledgement: This study was conducted while the author was a graduate student in the Faculty of Education, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".