What do we know about sexual and reproductive health of adolescents in Europe?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Acceptance of sexual and reproductive health as fundamental to the sustainable development of societies has allowed for creation of new reproductive health programmes and policies. WHO sexual and reproductive health (SRH) strategies were developed in the WHO Regional Office for Europe (2001), as well as globally (2004). Adolescent SRH is important in both strategies. Despite these commitments, adolescents remain vulnerable to poor reproductive health. The goal of this paper is to analyse the current status of SRH of adolescents in Europe. METHODS: Key reproductive health indicators were chosen. Information was obtained from published studies, databases and questionnaires sent to WHO reproductive health counterparts within the health ministries in the Member States of the WHO European Region. RESULTS: Pregnancy rate, age at first sexual intercourse, contraceptive use at first and last intercourse, contraceptive prevalence, HIV knowledge, and STI rates vary widely according to the population considered. Gender difference and lack of information pertaining to SRH of all adolescent populations are other key findings. CONCLUSIONS: While the SRH of most European adolescents is good, they remain a vulnerable population. Lack of standardized reproductive indicators and age specific aggregate data make it difficult to accurately assess the situation in individual countries or perform cross country comparison.
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.
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 | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it