Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Toronto Teen Survey (TTS) is a collaboration between community-based organizations, academic researchers and policy-makers that has an overall goal of developing a sexual health strategy for diverse youth in Toronto. In Phase I of the project, 1,216 youth were surveyed and approximately 100 service providers consulted about quality and access issues in community-based sexual health education and care services in Toronto (Appendix 1A: TTS Background, Appendix 1B TTS Survey Booklet). This current proposal seeks funding to support phase two of the project. Our plan is to employ a qualitative methodology (focus groups) with targeted youth populations to further investigate significant findings from the survey data, set a future research agenda, and explore community relevant ways to incorporate study findings into sexual health programming. Specific objectives of this study are to: 1. conduct more nuanced analyses of select quantitative survey findings by exploring the lived experiences of youth attempting to access sexual health services from specific sub-populations; 2. synthesize (in greater depth) results relevant to specific sub-populations of youth that experience increased and/or unique barriers to sexual health services and/or higher burdens of sexually transmitted infections (e.g. sexually diverse youth, immigrant and newcomer youth,
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.011 |
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".