MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1510298906 · doi:10.1007/bf03404417

Teen sexuality. Reaching out in the malls.

2002· article· en· W1510298906 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sheila Evans, Bonnie L. Wright, Lauren Goodbrand, Jeff P. Kilbreath, Jennifer Young

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductive healthBirth controlHuman sexualityPsychologyHealth professionalsControl (management)MedicineFamily planningFamily medicineNursingPopulationHealth careEnvironmental healthResearch methodologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Existing sexual health programs have not significantly reduced teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases. A more creative approach is needed. METHODS: An assessment of 539 teens in one Ontario city was conducted to identify knowledge about and use of birth control, comfort in discussing sexual health, and preferred sites, providers and methods of service delivery. RESULTS: Knowledge of, and comfort discussing, birth control was not associated with frequency of use but was associated with grade. Adolescents were less comfortable discussing sexual health with teachers than health professionals. Over time, comfort increased with health professionals, but not teachers. Sexually active teens reported willingness to attend mall-based clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Using birth control appears to be maturational given its association with grade. Since teens were consistently less comfortable with teachers, providing sexual health services in schools is likely ineffective. Teens may respond to clinics in creative settings such as malls.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.001

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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.109 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207