MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012726835 · doi:10.28984/drhj.v3i0.301

Community-based Peer Sexual Health Educators: Lessons from Youth

2020· article· en· W3012726835 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tanya Shute, Laura Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueDiversity of Research in Health Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductive healthPsychologySociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Developing and utilizing youth community members as peer educators is a growing and common phenomenon in health and social services, largely because of the organic learning and modelling processes in their everyday lives made possible by peer-to-peer processes. Part of what makes peer education effective over professional education is the potential rapport and trust built through shared lived experiences and identities between peers. There is significant potential for engaging peers in sexual health education specifically. This small-scale qualitative study explores the sexual health education needs of youth staying/living in York Region who identify as part of LGBTQ+ communities, as well as youth who either experience homelessness or experience serious mental health problems using a focus group methodology. The objective of this study is to report on the findings from the first session in a series of focus groups. Findings suggest that education about the consent to sexual activity is a significant area of need for all participants, and has implications in terms of the social context for participants. Emerging findings will be discussed in terms of participants’ expressed needs, such as a greater emphasis on consent, using all venues to discuss consent and relationships, and the importance of social identity of educators matching that of participants.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.011
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 head0.690
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.109 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiversity of Research in Health JournalSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207