Let’s talk about sexual health education: Youth perspectives on their learning experiences in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Education, and by extension, school-based sexual health education for youth, falls under provincial and territorial jurisdiction in Canada, creating a tapestry of educational experiences across the country. Previous research has found general support for providing sexual health education in schools as reported by teachers, parents, and college/university students. The current study further explores this topic through an examination of the perspectives and opinions of high-school aged youth. The purpose of this study was to develop knowledge to better understand sexual health education experiences in Canada and help determine the extent to which youth feel informed and well supported to develop and maintain their sexual health and participate in healthy sexual and/or romantic relationships. Twelve focus groups were conducted with youth (ages 12–19) across Canada and the transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. A total of 10 themes were identified related to what and how youth would like to learn, including four themes about the context and delivery of sexual health education and six themes about the content of sexual health education. Study findings highlight the need for youth perspectives when developing, implementing and evaluating sexual health education and provide insight to help inform recommendations for where educational improvements are warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".