Similar Sexual Behaviors With Casual Partners Among Gay Men With and Without a Regular Partner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that men in a relationship would engage in less risky sexual activity with their casual partners compared to men with only casual partners. STUDY: Cross-sectional data were collected between 1999 and 2003 in a study of young human immunodeficiency virus-seronegative gay men in Vancouver, British Columbia. We assessed the substance use and sexual behaviors of 156 men and compared those having casual partners in addition to 1 regular partner for the duration of the previous year (n = 43) to those reporting only casual partners during the previous year (n = 113). RESULTS: Men with just 1 regular partner were not significantly different from men without a regular partner with regard to sexual behaviors reportedly engaged in with casual partners, self-reported sexually transmitted infections diagnosed within the previous year, or demographic characteristics. Only previous use of poppers and higher frequencies of marijuana use were found among men without a regular partner. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, young gay men in a relationship do not appear less likely to engage in risky sex with casual partners than men with casual partners only.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".