The Ontario Sexual Health Education Update: Perspectives from the Toronto Teen Survey (TTS) Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual health education in schools is a controversial topic. In 2015 an updated version of the sex education program was introduced to schools in the Province of Ontario, Canada. The curriculum received strong criticism from some parents and lobby groups. Similar objections led to the Ontario Liberal government withdrawing the previous sex education program update in 2010. Public debates about the appropriateness of the new curriculum are primarily concerned with the extent to which parents were consulted. Absent from these discussions are the opinions of the curriculum’s target group: students. What do young people have to say about their sexual health education, and how can this information be used to provide more effective programs in schools? In this article we draw on the findings of the Toronto Teen Survey (TTS) (N = 1,216) to discuss youth responses to questions about their experience with sexual health education and the relevance of this information for school-based sexual health education (SBSE). Considering that TTS youth identified schools as their primary source of sexual health education, the survey findings have value for SBSE. In discussing the TTS data in the context of the updated Ontario sexual health curriculum, we provide a youth perspective on the revised sexual health education program that was implemented in the fall of 2015.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".