MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999747209 · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.24.3.321

Why Are You Bringing Up Condoms Now? The Effect of Message Content on Framing Effects of Condom Use Messages.

2005· article· en· W1999747209 on OpenAlex

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

VenueHealth Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCondomSocial psychologyInterpersonal communicationFraming (construction)PsychologyNegotiationBehavior changeSafer sexHealth communicationInterpersonal relationshipMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)SociologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to prospect theory (A. Tversky & D. Kahneman, 1981), messages advocating a low-risk (i.e., easy, low-cost) behavior are most effective if they stress the benefits of adherence (gain framed), whereas messages advocating a risky behavior are most effective if they stress the costs of nonadherence (loss framed). Although condom use is viewed as a low-risk behavior, it may entail risky interpersonal negotiations. Study 1 (N = 167) compared ratings of condom use messages advocating relational behaviors (e.g., discussing condoms) or health behaviors (e.g., carrying condoms). As predicted, loss-framed relational messages and gain-framed health messages received higher evaluations. Study 2 (N = 225) offers a replication and evidence of issue involvement and gender as moderators. Results are discussed with reference to the design of condom use messages.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.344 · 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