MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Conceptions of sexuality of adolescents living in residence cares: are their interests and curiosities different?

2021· article· en· W4200000200 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Zélia Anastácio

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology Revista INFAD de psicología · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaUniversidade do MinhoInternational Council for Canadian Studies
KeywordsResidenceHuman sexualityPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyInstitutionalisationSocial psychologyGender studiesSociologyDemographyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The institutionalization of children and adolescents generally is due to unfavourable socio-economic conditions, children maltreatment, school absenteeism and adolescents’ behavioural problems, including sexual risk behaviours. Sexuality education (SE) is very difficult to approach in residence care, given the sensitive and problematic life stories of adolescents involved. It is important to know what adolescents already know and what they want to learn and clarify about sexuality. The research question was: What interests and curiosities of sexuality do adolescents living in residence care have? The objectives were to make a diagnosis of adolescents’ interests, needs and conceptions about sexuality and to relate these conceptions with individual factors. A transversal study was done following a quantitative methodology. A questionnaire was carried out for this research. Dependent variables were: sources of information about SE; perceptions about the role of SE on children and adolescents’ development; responsible intervener for SE; sexuality topics about which adolescents want to learn more. A convenience sample included 114 teens aged between 11 to 21 (mean=15.7±2.4; 68 females and 46 males), living 60,5% of them since more than 24 months ago in residence care. A statistical analysis was done. Results showed that in adolescents’ views, the main role of SE is: to help them to respect different sexual orientations; to understand that sexuality expresses differently along the lifespan; and to promote equal rights and opportunities between men and women. Their main sources of information are friends, internet and familiars with approximately equal age. Persons they consider to be most responsible for their SE are doctors, nurses and mothers, with significant differences for health professionals, girls having a higher preference for them than boys. Topics about which adolescents have more interest and curiosity are: love, friendship and romantic relationships; adolescence; diversity, tolerance, sexual orientation and respect; and sexually transmitted diseases and infections.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.373 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology Revista INFAD de psicologíaSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207