The association between substance use, unplanned sexual intercourse and other sexual behaviours among adolescent students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the prevalence of high-risk sexual behaviours and the influence of substance use and unplanned sexual intercourse on multiple sexual partners, inconsistent condom use and reasons for not always using condoms among adolescent students. DESIGN: A standardized self-reported anonymous questionnaire administered to a representative sample of students. SETTING: The Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island in 1998. PARTICIPANTS: 9997 students in grades 9, 10 and 12 in the public school system. MEASUREMENTS: Items on sexual intercourse, unplanned sexual intercourse, number of sexual partners, condom use, alcohol use, episodes of binge drinking and drunkenness, cigarette smoking and cannabis use. FINDINGS: About 37.5% of males and 39.7% of females reported having engaged in sexual intercourse in the 12 months prior to the survey. Of those, 68.0% of males and 61.5% of females reported having engaged in unplanned sexual intercourse, 40.9% of males and 32.1% of females reported having more than one sexual partner, and 49.9% of males and 64.1% of females reported inconsistent condom use. Unplanned sexual intercourse under the influence of alcohol or other drug was found to be an independent risk factor for multiple sexual partners and inconsistent condom use. CONCLUSION: The demonstration of an association between substance use, unplanned sexual intercourse and other sexual behaviours lends support to a harm minimization approach, including the provision of non-judgemental information and interventions addressing unplanned sexual intercourse under the influence of a substance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".