The Cedar Project: Understanding Barriers to Consistent Condom use over Time in a Cohort of Young Indigenous People who use Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little information exists on the use of condoms as protective barriers to sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among indigenous people in Canada. This study explores risk factors of inconsistent condom use (during consensual sex) over time among participants in the Cedar Project, a prospective cohort study of indigenous young people living in Vancouver and Prince George, British Columbia, who use drugs. Due to the serial measurements for each study subject, generalized estimating equations modeling with logit link was used to accommodate the temporal correlation within subjects. For young women, inconsistent condom use over time was predicted by having a recent STI (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.12, 2.79]), smoking crack daily (AOR = 1.63, 95%CI [1.02, 2.61]), and having experienced recent sexual abuse (AOR = 2.07, 95%CI [1.20, 3.56]). Among young men, living in Prince George (AOR = 1.63, 95%CI [1.14, 2.39]) and daily crack smoking (AOR = 1.56, 95%CI [1.02, 2.40]) were associated with inconsistent condom use over time. Among participants who used injection drugs, inconsistent condom use was associated with smoking crack daily (AOR = 1.59, 95%CI [1.04, 2.43]) and sharing needles (AOR = 1.78, 95%CI [1.26, 2.51]). The availability and effectiveness of sexual health services must be prioritized for indigenous people, and the design of culturally safe sexual health programs requires the meaningful involvement of young indigenous people.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".