MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981251529 · doi:10.3138/cjhs.23.1.a3

Association of different identity styles with sexual experience and decision-making among Canadian youth

2014· article· en· W1981251529 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Uzma Williams, Shaniff Esmail

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySexual identityIdentity (music)Human sexualityAssertivenessStyle (visual arts)Social psychologyNormativeDevelopmental psychologyPersonalityAssociation (psychology)Clinical psychologyGender studiesSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three different identity styles among youth are known to be associated with a variety of health-related issues but the association of these identity styles with sexual health has not been investigated. This study documented the identity styles of 657 Canadian students in their teens; the distribution of identity styles was: information-seeking (32.9%); normative (23%); and diffuse (44.1%). Twenty percent of the students reported that they were currently sexually active. Youth with a diffuse identity style were significantly more likely to report being sexually active than those with an information-seeking identity style. Similar associations with identity styles were investigated in relation to student's comfort communicating about sexuality, sexual assertiveness, and potential for sexual risk behaviour and self-efficacy. The findings are discussed in relation to personality characteristics known to be associated with the three identity styles. Educators and counsellors can apply the results to better address the educational needs, social skills, behaviours, and goals of youth according to their differing identity styles.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Human SexualitySame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207