MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Individual, familial, friends‐related and contextual predictors of early sexual intercourse

2010· article· en· W1986499924 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Aude Boislard P., François Poulin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSexual intercoursePsychologyContext (archaeology)Developmental psychologyLongitudinal studySexual behaviorYoung adultDemographyClinical psychologyPopulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the unique and simultaneous contribution of adolescents' characteristics, parent-child relationship and friends' characteristics on early sexual intercourse, while accounting for family status. A longitudinal multi-sample design was used. The first sample was recruited in a suburban context (n = 265; 62% girls) and the second sample in an urban setting (n = 136; 61% girls). All predictors were measured in Grade 8 and age at first intercourse was assessed yearly for three years. Being in a non-intact family, low parental control, high antisocial behaviors, low self-disclosure, high proportion of other-sex friends and high substance use were associated with earlier sexual intercourse. When all predictors were considered simultaneously, more antisocial behaviors, high proportion of other-sex friends and non-intact family structure significantly discriminated youth reporting first intercourse at age 13 or less from those who reported first intercourse at age 14, at age 15, or were virgins at age 16 among both samples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations124
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AdolescenceSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207