“We are mothers, sisters, and lovers too”: Examining young Black women's experiences navigating sex and sexual health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, there is a lack of research that addresses the sexual health and well-being of African, Caribbean, and Black young women. This paper aims to gather perspectives of young Black women to address the social contexts of how young Black women navigate issues related to sex and sexual health. Young Black women experience unique dynamics in navigating their sexualities and sexual healthcare. The nuanced experiences stem from social contexts with historical underpinnings, such as the perception of Black women's bodies, Black identity, gender roles, and sexual double standards. This Community-Based Participatory Research study (N = 24) utilized focus groups to examine young Black women's experiences navigating sexual health. Employing a thematic analysis, participants identified four themes representing their narratives of navigating sexual health. The themes included the perceptions and hypersexuality of Black women's bodies, navigating sexual double standards and gender roles as Black women, diverse Blackness, and migration experiences concerning sexual health and surveillance of Black women's bodies. This paper is intended to add to scholarly discourse and will include practical strategies for use by researchers and community practitioners in sexual health within the Black community.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".