Emerging adults' experiences of middle and high school sexual health education in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the perception of sexual health education (SHE) being provided in middle and high schools in three Canadian provinces from a sample of young adults. Participants were 296 undergraduate students (91 men, 205 women) between the ages of 18 and 24 who had gone to both middle school and high school in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, or Ontario. There were few differences between provinces. Almost all participants reported receiving SHE in middle school but about a quarter had not received SHE in high school. On average, participants rated the SHE they had received in middle school as fair and in high school as good. Participants, on average, rated most of 21 specified sexual health topics as covered poorly and covered. The men tended to rate the SHE they had received in middle school more positively than did the women. Participants reported that teachers used a variety of methods in the classroom, 6.78 of 9 possible methods on average. Multiple regression analyses showed that higher perceived quality of SHE was associated with better topic coverage, the extent to which the topics covered matched their interests, and the number of different methods used. Participants reported that peers were a more important source of sexual health information than was SHE. The results point to a continued need to improve the quality of SHE provided in Canadian schools.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".