A theory‐based approach to understanding sexual behavior at Mardi Gras
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the Triandis Model of Interpersonal Behavior (TIB), we considered the unique context of Mardi Gras, the annual festival in New Orleans, Louisiana, and how it might influence sexual behavior. This study utilized a two-stage, qualitative and quantitative methodological framework. Focus groups of past Mardi Gras participants were held to gather data to inform the development of the study instruments, and data were subsequently collected from 300 Mardi Gras participants in February 2004 using a pencil-and-paper questionnaire. For women, the TIB model did not significantly predict intentions to engage in sexual behavior at Mardi Gras. Cognitive beliefs and subjective social norms predicted intentions to engage in oral and vaginal sex among male participants. For men and women, peer sexual activity, intentions, and previous sexual experience predicted engaging in sexual behaviors at Mardi Gras. Situational conditions related to Mardi Gras culture predicted anal sex behavior. The TIB, as a guiding framework for the study, makes apparent the importance of cultural context when developing interventions related to sexuality that are to be implemented in a specific setting like Mardi Gras.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".