MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996675501 · doi:10.1080/00224490609552304

A theory‐based approach to understanding sexual behavior at Mardi Gras

2006· article· en· W1996675501 on OpenAlexaff
Robin R. Milhausen, Michael Reece, Bilesha Perera

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHuman sexualityInterpersonal communicationContext (archaeology)Situational ethicsFocus groupSocial psychologyPsychological interventionDevelopmental psychologyGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.166 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations36
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sex ResearchSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207