MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2935537842 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v11n2p54

Inappropriate Sexual Behaviours as Perceived by Students in the Institute of Education, Delta State University, Abraka: Implication for Counselling

2019· article· en· W2935537842 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Grace Omoni, Anna Onoyase

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCronbach's alphaHuman sexualityPerceptionSocial psychologyClinical psychologyPsychometricsGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine the perception of students in the Institute of Education on the incidence of inappropriate sexual behaviours among students at Delta State University, Abraka. A total of 334 students in Business Education and Library Science Education completed a questionnaire with items on pre-marital sex, pornographic materials, sexual abuse and indecent dressing. The instrument for the study was a 22 – item “Youth Assessment of Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour Interest Inventory” (YASPII). The instrument had acceptable content and face validity. It had a Cronbach alpha reliability index of .75. Four research hypotheses were tested. Findings of the study revealed that pre-marital sex, pornographic films and indecent dressing were perceived by students as common forms of inappropriate sexual behaviour. There was however disparity in their perception of sexual abuse as a form of inappropriate behaviour. It was recommended that sexuality education be scaled up in Nigerian higher education institutions.Counselors and other stakeholders should sensitize students on the consequences of viewing pornographic materials, engaging in pre-marital sex and wearing indecent clothing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207