#consent: University students’ perceptions of their sexual consent education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about young people’s perceptions of and attitudes toward the coverage of sexual consent or their perceptions of the extent to which they have learned about sexual consent from various sources. Participants were undergraduate men ( n = 73) and women ( n = 128) between the ages of 18 and 29 ( M = 19.62, SD = 1.75) who completed a survey assessing perceived coverage of sexual consent in school and by parents, attitudes toward university and media coverage of sexual consent, and the amount they perceived they had learned about sexual consent from five sources (mothers, fathers, friends, school-based sexual health education, the Internet). On average, participants reported poor coverage of sexual consent. Participants more strongly agreed that there was extensive coverage and that they had learned a lot from coverage in the media than at university but did not strongly endorse either source. Participants thought they learned significantly more from the media and Internet and peers than from school and parents. Participants who received limited sexual consent education at school/home responded to an open-ended question regarding the perceived impact of limited education from this source. Although some participants reported no impact, others attributed negative experiences to their limited sexual consent education including experiencing non-consensual sexual activities and detrimental effects on their romantic relationships. The results point to the need for parents and schools to do more to educate youth about sexual consent and indicate that young adults are receptive to sexual consent education at university and in the media.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".