MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995149703 · doi:10.3200/jach.52.6.263-267

Partner Communication Skills and Condom Use Among College Couples

2004· article· en· W1995149703 on OpenAlex
Heather Tulloch, Kevin D. McCaul, Raymond G. Miltenberger, Joshua M. Smyth

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American College Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCanadian Psychological Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCondomPsychologyGeneral partnershipCohortCommunication skillsInterpersonal communicationInterpersonal relationshipBehavior changeSexually activeMedical educationSocial psychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyFamily medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examined the effects of (1) communication-skills training, (2) relationship-specific education, or (3) risk information on the condom use of 106 heterosexual college students who were in sexually active relationships. Postintervention assessments of in vivo communication-skills demonstrated that participants in the communication-skills group acquired the skills to use direct requests for condom use and to counter partner refusal statements more effectively than participants in the other conditions (ps < .01). Despite successful skill acquisition, however, students failed to change their subsequent communication or condom-use behavior. This pattern of findings is considered in terms of how the development of sexual partnership in this cohort affects the interplay of motivation and skills for condom use.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.358 · 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