“I Like to Think I’m a Pretty Safe Guy but Sometimes a 40-Pounder* Will Change That”: A Mixed Methods Study of Substance Use and Sexual Risk Among Aboriginal Young People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a mixed methods study to explore links between substance use and sexual risk among Aboriginal young people in British Columbia, Canada. Individual in-depth interviews were conducted in 2004–2005 with 30 young people ages 15–19; we present a descriptive thematic analysis. Data from a 2003 provincially representative survey that included 2,467 Aboriginal young people attending secondary school were used to model relationships between substance use and sexual behaviour outcomes. Young people perceived that substance use affected community and extended family relationships and could shape behaviour during sexual encounters. Survey data show different age trajectories of risk. For young men, there was a strong and consistent linear relationship between substance use and potentially risky sexual behaviour across all age groups. For women, using more substances at younger but not older ages was a strong marker of sexual initiation. Using more substances in older but not younger age groups was a strong indicator for having more sexual partners. For both young women and young men, lifetime substance use and substance use at last sexual encounter did not predict condom use. Interventions must consider the effects of substance use on community structures and family relationships in addition to individual risk.
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 | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".