Bibliographic record
Abstract
As social identities are more and more developed and people’s awareness of self-identity is blooming, sexual-related topics are frequently becoming the most highlighted topic in nowadays social topics. Sexual minorities and women as two relatively disadvantaged groups in social structure, LGBTQ+ and women’s rights, and status occupied greater weight in motions and social norms. Self-identification and self-protection are where sex education is involved. Sex education is an important part for an individual to form a sane identity, and it does not merely exist in school but (should) exist in society outside of schools’ high walls. Sex education is an important step to equip the educated with the essential knowledge to protect themselves away from sexual problems, conduct safe, healthy, and responsible sexual behavior and enhance reproductive health. This article will use a case study to examine how sex education relates to women’s status or social identities by comparing the sex education curriculum and social situation in two major American states, Texas and New York. Analyze how different pedagogical, curricular, and instructional approach greatly impacts the status of women in these states, exploring the laws and the regulation that govern these practices. This article will show how they impact women´s physical and mental health, their income levels, and their professional advancement. It will argue how systematical sex education affects the status of women in New York and Texas and conclude the effective measure to improve the women’s status, which would be helpful to present the importance of sex education, and provide feminism and also sexual minorities a new key effective point to sustain their rights.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".