A Qualitative Study on the Perspectives of Young Adults in Iqaluit on School-based Sexual Health Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Historical traumas led to the alteration of traditional education pathways, including education on sexual and reproductive health and healthy relationships. Parents no longer are the sole or majority source of information on these topics for youth; the education system and medical professionals have largely replaced parents to this regard. However, for many Inuit youth, parents largely remain the preferred source for this information. Methods: This narrative research study explores young people’s perspectives on the topic of sexual health education. Six sharing circles were conducted on six separate occasions in [community]. 12 youth aged 18 to 22 years participated, which included men (n=3), women (n=8), and non-binary persons (n=1). Four participants identified as LGBTQ+. Results: Sexual health education youth received was perceived to lack information they want and need to live sexually health lives. Peer networks were deemed a positive influence, however at times exerted pressure on youth to participate in sexual activities for which they were not ready. Parents were rarely a source of sexual health information, though youth overwhelmingly desired conversations on sexual health topics with their parents. Conclusion: Results show there is a need to implement community-based resources to address sexual education within Nunavut communities, and to educate parents on how to communicate sexual health information to their adolescent children. The development of a resource for adults could decrease the gap between youth and existing sexual health information including accessing support from family.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".