MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1516400626

Female Adolescents’ Attitude towards Sexually Risky Behaviors

2008· article· en· W1516400626 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janet F. Wang, Patricia S. Simoni, Ying Wu, Christine A Banvard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of international women's studies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWest Virginia University
KeywordsPremarital sexDemographyCondomSexual intercoursePsychologySexual behaviorQuarter (Canadian coin)Young adultHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Sex partnersRisky sexual behaviorMedicinePopulationDevelopmental psychologySexually activeSyphilis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This cross-sectional survey examines the association between attitudes and female adolescents ’ sexually risky behaviors. A sample of 159 subjects, aged 14 – 20 from three high schools in West Virginia participated in the study. The results indicate that 60.3% (n = 96) reported having had sexual intercourse and, of this sexually active group, 60.4% (n = 58) stated that they had sex the first time at age 15 or younger. Fifty-five percents (n = 88) reported at least one of the following behaviors: (1) sexual initiation at age 15 or younger, (2) frequent sexual intercourse last month, (3) multiple sex partners, (4) unprotected sex during last sex, and (5) had sex with drug or alcohol. Multiple regression analysis indicates that those participants who favor premarital sex were more likely to engage in sexually risky behaviors. The items of “favoring premarital sex ” and “living arrangements ” were the only two items that were independently found to be related to the sexually risky behaviors. Female adolescents who lived with both parents were less likely to engage in sexually risky behaviors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of international women's studiesSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207