MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386120996 · doi:10.32674/jis.v14i3.6011

Sexual and Reproductive Health Experiences of International Students Studying in Universities of Western Countries

2023· article· en· W4386120996 on OpenAlexaff
Abukari Kwame, Hua Li, Pammla Petrucka, Geoffrey Maina

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Students · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductive healthPsychological interventionScopusInclusion (mineral)Sexual and reproductive health and rightsPsychologyMedical educationMEDLINEMedicinePolitical scienceNursingSocial psychologyEnvironmental healthReproductive rightsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engaging in sexual relationships is part of adulthood, but doing so in a foreign country can be risky because unsafe sexual experiences can have severe consequences for international students. This review explored sexual and reproductive health (SRH) experiences and needs of international university students in Western countries to identify challenges and gaps and to discuss critical SRH interventions. Four databases (Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed) were searched for peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2023. After screening 1607 articles, 10 met the inclusion criteria. Results of the review showed that many international students lack comprehensive knowledge about sexual health and sexually transmitted infections. They often obtain SRH information from informal sources, face language barriers, and experience difficulties navigating the healthcare systems of their host countries. University sexual wellness programs should examine how cultural orientations impact the sexual health of international students and provide culturally appropriate SRH interventions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.493
Teacher spread0.396 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International StudentsSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207