MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987100848 · doi:10.1177/1557988307301276

Correlates of Putting Condoms On After Sex Has Begun and of Removing Them Before Sex Ends: A Study of Men Attending an Urban Public STD Clinic

2007· article· en· W1987100848 on OpenAlexaff
William L. Yarber, Richard A. Crosby, Cynthia A. Graham, Stephanie A. Sanders, Janet N. Arno, Rose Hartzell, Kimberly R. McBride, Robin R. Milhausen, Lindsay Brown, Laurie J. Legocki, Martha E. Payne, Alexis Rothring

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Men s Health · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCondomMedicinePublic healthFamily medicineSexually transmitted diseaseDeveloped countryFamily planningDemographySexual intercoursePopulationGynecologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Research methodologyEnvironmental healthSyphilisNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to identify possible correlates of putting condoms on after sex has begun and taking them off before sex has ended among male patients of an urban, public sexually transmitted disease clinic. Participants responded to a questionnaire and were largely African American men, 18 to 35 years old, who had used a condom during penile-vaginal intercourse at least three times in the past 3 months. In controlled analyses, men who were not highly motivated to use condoms correctly were nearly twice as likely to put a condom on after sex had begun. Men who reported erection loss during sex were about twice as likely to remove condoms before sex ended. Men reporting difficulties with the fit and feel of condoms were 2.5 times more likely to remove condoms early. Identified correlates may be amenable to clinic-based education and counseling augmented by offering a variety of condom brands and sizes to patients.

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)0.011
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 score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Men s HealthSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207