An examination of Canadian parents’ and guardians’ agreement with the Core Principles of comprehensive sexual health education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental/guardian support can be a key input for policy decision-making for sexual health education curriculum development and it is, therefore, critical to examine parental/guardian attitudes towards the principles underlying comprehensive sexual health education. The Canadian Guidelines for Sexual Health Education ( SIECCAN, 2019 ) specify nine Core Principles of Comprehensive Sexual Health Education that should inform the planning and delivery of sexual health education programs. This study examines parental/guardian attitudes towards the Core Principles and determines whether attitudes vary based on demographic and regional variables. Two thousand parents/guardians from across Canada completed an online questionnaire assessing demographic characteristics and overall agreement with each of the Core Principles. There was strong consensus among parents/guardians; 73% to 85% support the inclusion of the nine Core Principles in the planning and development of sexual health education programs. We tested agreement with Core Principles in two ways: first using averaged scores across all Core Principle items, then across individual Core Principles. We found some statistically significant effects based on parent/guardian gender, educational attainment, region of residence, and importance of religion, however all effect sizes were small (between 1%–4% variance accounted for) suggesting these were not particularly meaningful. Therefore, findings demonstrate parental/guardian support across Canada for the Core Principles of Comprehensive Sexual Health Education. Understanding parents’/guardians’ attitudes towards the philosophical underpinnings of sexual health education provides policymakers with a firmer understanding of parental perspectives which may be particularly salient as new issues emerge in public discourse about the content of sexual health education in schools.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".