“I would have liked to be better prepared for the real things”: A qualitative analysis of school-based sexual health education received by girls who have experienced sexual dating violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian guidelines suggest using a positive, empowering, comprehensive, and safe approach to provide sexual health education (SHE). However, when they do so, decision-makers and educators often favour sexual risk prevention initiatives rather than positive aspects of sexuality. Furthermore, youth often criticize the gap between what they learn in class and what they experience in “real” life. This is particularly true for youth who have experienced sexual dating violence and whose particular needs are little considered in the development of SHE initiatives. The current qualitative study aimed to identify the key principles of SHE from the perspective of adolescent girls who experienced sexual dating violence. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 100 adolescent female participants, aged between 14 and 19 years old, who reported at least one experience of sexual dating violence. Four conceptual categories were created based on participants’ narratives, from which a theorization of SHE key principles was conducted: (1) Consent-Based: SHE should promote the affirmation and respect of sexual desires and boundaries; (2) Positive-Oriented: SHE should promote the legitimization of girls’ sexuality and pleasure; (3) Gender Equality–Focused: SHE should promote gender equality in sexual and romantic relationships; and (4) Developmentally Appropriate: SHE should correspond to the psychosexual development of youth. Results support the relevance of educating about consent, promoting a positive and inclusive approach to sexuality with sexually victimized youth, and involving them in SHE initiatives to better meet their needs. Implications for practice are discussed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".