Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex education, mandated in most Canadian schools, aims to teach youth about healthy sexual expression and relationships. However, programme delivery may vary widely, and sex education tends to focus on pregnancy and disease prevention and less on interpersonal issues such as relationships and violence. Sex education research tends to follow suit, focusing on dichotomous health outcomes rather than on how contextual factors, such as type of school, programme, tone, and teacher, may affect learning. This study expands this scope to include information about content presented in sex education (specifically related to relationships and sexual violence) as well as about school context, asking: Do amounts of information received in sex education about biology, relationships, and sexual violence, differ by school and programme context? Participants were 1845 undergraduates attending one of two post-secondary schools in Ontario, Canada. They completed an online survey about sexual information they had received. Independent variables included type of secondary school attended, sex education programme, and perceived tone of programme. MANCOVAs indicated that programme type and programme tone were linked with significant differences in amounts of biology, relationship, and violence messages received. Students reported the most content across all three areas was received in comprehensive sex education programmes. Safety-based programmes delivered the most information about biology and relationships, and pleasure-driven programmes delivered the most sexual violence information. School context may affect information amounts received about biology, relationships, and sexual violence, all important topics likely to contribute to the sexual health and safety of adolescents as they develop.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".