Parenting Styles, Sex Education Locality and Self-Efficacy as Predictors of Teenagers’ Experiment with Sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of sexuality among teenagers was investigated in this study to assess factors that could predispose them to it. Factors such as parenting style, sex education, locality and self-efficacy were assessed to know the extent of their influence on teenagers’ experiment with sex. Three hundred and Sixty four students (220 males, 67 Females In Agege and Ipaja Local government, Lagos State and 44 males, 33 Females in Esure, Ekiti State) participated in the study. Result showed that permissive and authoritarian parenting styles influence teenagers’ experiment with sex, while authoritative parenting does not. Also sex education and self-efficacy significantly predict sex experimentation. There is also relationship between experimenting with sex and self-efficacy, permissive parenting, authoritarian parenting and sex education, but not significantly related to authoritative parenting. The study found a significant main effect of sex and locality on experimenting with sex, while teenagers in rural setting are significantly higher in experimenting with sex and authoritarian parenting than their counterparts in urban setting, those in urban setting are significantly higher in self-efficacy, authoritative parenting and comprehensive sex education.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".