MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161826324 · doi:10.82308/31927

A content analysis of Québec’s K-11 Sexuality Education program using UNESCO guidelines

2021· dissertation· en· W7161826324 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Despina Xanthoudakis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityContent analysisContext (archaeology)Sexuality educationGrounded theoryProcess (computing)Content (measure theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sexuality Education program in Québec has been mandated across all schools in the province, however its English-language content had not yet been evaluated in the context of evidence-based practices. The present study used content analysis to explore the efficacy of Québec’s Sexuality Education content by determining how well it follows established guidelines. This research was grounded in a constructivist Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis theoretical approach, rooted in critical policy studies. English-language Sexuality Education program documents were compared with UNESCO’s International technical guidance on sexuality education. A framework analysis approach to data analysis allowed themes to emerge from the data inductively while also providing the opportunity for UNESCO’s themes to map deductively onto the existing program. Analysis of Québec’s program revealed a lack of overall specificity and depth among 6 of the 8 learning themes. Of UNESCO's recommendations for comprehensive sexual education content development, 7 of 10 recommendations were not met with sufficient detail. Thorough skills-based content such as communication, decision-making, media literacy, and navigating services were notably absent, especially within an intersectional framework. These findings demonstrate a need for more detailed and intersectional Sexuality Education program content, especially while teacher training in the province is still in the process of being implemented. More research is needed to contextualize the implications of the findings with regard to the program's implementation and evaluation

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.248
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→