Effective approaches to reducing adolescent unprotected sex pregnancy and childbearing -- statistical data included.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although teenage pregnancy and birth rates have declined in the United States every year since 1991 the United States still has one of the highest pregnancy rates in the developed world; about 40% of all young women become pregnant before they turn 20 and about one fourth of sexually experienced teenagers contracts an STD every year. These alarming statistics have motivated efforts to delay teenagers initiation of sex and to increase their use of condoms and contraception more generally if they do have sex. For example communities concerned with the reproductive health of youth have implemented curriculum-based sexuality and HIV education programs in both school and community settings sex and HIV education programs for parents and their families family planning services for teenagers clinic instructional programs with one-on-one consultation with a medical provider school-based and school-linked clinics school condom-availability programs community-wide pregnancy or HIV prevention initiatives with many components early childhood programs and youth development programs for adolescents (e.g. service learning programs vocational education and employment programs and other youth development programs). This paper summarizes a review of 73 studies meeting specified criteria. The six primary criteria include (a) the study was published in 1980 or later (b) the study was conducted in the United States or Canada (c) the program targeted adolescents of middle school or high school age (roughly 12 to 18) (d) the study used an appropriate experimental or quasi-experimental design (e) the sample size was at least 100 in the combined treatment and control group and (f) the study measured impact on sexual or contraceptive behavior or pregnancy or childbearing. This review identified four groups of programs with strong evidence of success. (excerpt)
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.002 |
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".