Sexual health education and different learning experiences\nreported by youth across Canada \n
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an absence of common sexual health education curricula in Canada, and learning experiences differ for youth across the country. Without a national standardized system to monitor the sexual health education delivery, research is needed to better understand these diverse learning experiences. Gender and sexually diverse youth in Canada may be overlooked and subjected to information that is exclusively focused on cisgender, heterosexual people, and experiences. Our study explored sexual health education learning experiences for youth in Canada and examined group differences based on self-reported gender and sexual identities. Participants (N = 1507) completed an online survey with demographic questions and questions about experiences with sexual health education. Participants were 16–25 years old (M = 18.06) and our sample was comprised of many sexually diverse participants (n = 857). Most youth in our study received sexual health education (94%), although many received only a few (1-3) lessons or workshops (41%). Most participants received education in a school (95%) and from a teacher (87%). Differences in education context and educator type between gender and sexually diverse youth were not significant. The most commonly reported topics youth were exposed to were sexually transmitted infections (92%), physical anatomy and/or puberty (89%), and pregnancy and birth control (79%). Gender and sexually diverse youth reported lower percentages of topics learned for nearly all sexual topics listed in our study. Study findings are discussed by examining both strengths and areas for improvement for supporting youth learning through sexual health education in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".