What Do(n't) American Undergraduate Social Work Students Learn About Sex? A Content Analysis of Sex Positivity and Diversity in Five Popular HBSE Textbooks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite an emphasis within American social work to operationalize important professional values, such as embracing human diversity and promoting social justice, it is not clear how this may or may not occur with respect to human sexuality and sexual practices. In considering this issue, the present study employed a thorough content analysis of undergraduate level Human Behavior and the Social Environment (HBSE) textbooks in order to explore how human sexuality and sexual practices are presented to undergraduate college students. Specifically, this study focused on the extent that texts in the sample reflect sexual diversity and sex positivity, which are consistent with key social work values, and thus how such texts may shape students’ professional views of sexuality. Findings suggest that the educational presentation of sexuality and sexual practices varies across HBSE texts in terms of embracing sexual diversity and promoting sex-positivity.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 it