Examining how major stakeholders within one school district in British Columbia are implementing the sexual health curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual health education (SHE) in Canadian schools is a controversial subject. Thirty years have passed since the government mandated that SHE be taught in Canadian schools, yet the subject still struggles to secure its place in education as curriculum design remains stagnated. In British Columbia, the 2016 - 2018 curriculum update relocated health topics, specifically SHE, to physical education (PE), the subject now known as physical and health education (PHE). To date, little research is available on the implementation of SHE curriculum within Canadian schools. This qualitative case study examined how major stakeholders (district, administration, and teachers) are implementing SHE in one school district within British Columbia. Data collection methods included interviews with district staff, administrative staff and teachers as well as district documentation analysis. Data were analyzed using content comparison. Three resulting themes explicated how the school district utilized components of a top-down implementation approach, identified deficiencies in the sustainability of SHE and factors that supported and hindered the implementation of SHE. Comments from all three stakeholders highlighted the value of SHE delivery in schools but where and how to best intergrade this topic remains unclear.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".