Bibliographic record
Abstract
On liberal arts campuses across the United States, about 40% of students are identifying as LGBTQ+ according to a study cited by The College Fix (Peppiatt 2022). While many surveys have collected data on the sexual orientations of students, few have assessed how students are having sex and what safe sex measures they may be using. In a cultural climate that discourages sexual knowledge and offers limited sex education, young adults are defining sex and sexual safety for themselves. This research is framed in the context of symbolic interactionism, discourse theory, and sexual scripts. This research uses eight interviews with liberal arts college students, predominantly queer, to glean personal experiences of sexual learning, sexual safety, and their perceptions and definitions of ‘sex.’ This study suggests that young adults have reacted to heteronormative norms and limited sexual education with their own dialogical understandings of sex and sexual safety which I consider a ‘queering of the dialogue.’ The results demonstrate that current approaches to sexual education set young adults up for unsafe sex and that dialogue is an integral tool for sexual safety and the vastness of queer sex.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".