Obstacles to sexual health services for youth: service providers' perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>In 2006/2007, the Toronto Teen Survey investigated barriers and facilitators to youth (ages 13 to 18+) access to sexual health services. The results of the surveys were presented to 13 focus groups of 80 service providers (SPs) from 55 agencies around the Greater Toronto Area. Funding and resource allocation were seen as primary barriers to providing adequate sexual health promotion and services. Coding and analysis of focus group transcripts identified two primary categories of concern: (1) Distribution and Amount of Resources (including lack of funding, length of funding agreements, and increased competition for scarce financial resources among service providing organizations and agencies); and (2) Resources for Specific Services (including peer education, translation services, and targeting specific populations of youth). SPs recommendations for change included: approachable staff; school-based outreach; increased accessibility and visibility; peer-to-peer outreach; increased and constant funding; and sharing and partnerships among SPs. Implications for the improvement of youth sexual health services and promotion are discussed. </p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".