An Information-Motivation-Behavioural Skills model analysis of young adults’ sexual behaviour patterns and regulatory requirements for sexual consent in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual consent has been defined as the unambiguous willingness to engage in sexual activity that is expressed or verified by sexual partners. Despite the importance of expression and ascertainment of sexual consent, there is a marked disconnect between required elements of sexual consent in legal provisions and administrative policies, on one hand, and how individuals actually engage in their sexual interactions, on the other. We also lack an integrated theoretical model of factors that contribute to sexual consent expression and ascertainment to employ as a conceptual foundation to guide sexual consent promotion intervention efforts. This article adopts the perspective of the Information-Motivation-Behavioural Skills (IMB) model of sexual health to organize an overview of research concerning how individuals currently engage in what they view as “sexual consent” behaviours and how regulatory bodies conceptualize and regulate sexual consent, with a specific focus on the Canadian setting. According to the IMB model, deficits in consent related to information, motivation, and behavioural skills are responsible for the lack of sexual consent behaviour enactment, and research that identifies such deficits is discussed throughout the paper. The IMB model and the obstacles to sexual consent expression and ascertainment which are identified have implications for sexual assault adjudication, sexual assault prevention education, and sexual consent-related policy. Understanding how and why individuals currently ascertain and express consent is the crucial foundation upon which sexual consent education and regulation must be built.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".