If you teach them, they will come: providers' reactions to incorporating pleasure into youth sexual education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Sexual pleasure and satisfaction are integral components of the human sexual experience, yet these crucial aspects of sexuality are rarely placed on sexual education agendas. The objective of this paper is to explore the ways in which various groups of Service Providers (SPs) participating in the Toronto Teen Survey (TTS) understand the role of pleasure in sexual education for youth, highlighting the challenges and benefits of teaching pleasure in diverse settings. Methods: The TTS employed a community-based research (CBR) methodology. Between December 2006 and August 2007, 1,216 surveys were collected from youth in over 90 different community-based settings across Toronto by youth peer researchers. In 2008, 13 follow-up focus groups were conducted with 80 service providers from 55 different agencies around the Greater Toronto Area. All transcripts were input into qualitative data management software, NVIVO. Coding and analysis of data employed the constant comparative method. Results: SPs had a number of competing opinions about the inclusion of pleasure in sexual health education and programming. These concerns can be divided into three major areas: placing pleasure on the agenda; the role of gender in pleasure education; and the appropriate spaces and professionals to execute a pleasure-informed curriculum. Conclusion: Access to resources, training and personal background determine SPs' willingness and ability to engage in the pedagogy of sexual pleasure. Medically trained clinicians were less likely to see themselves as candidates for instructing youth on issues of pleasure, believing that public health and health promotion professionals were more adequately trained and organizationally situated to deliver those services.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".