RISKY SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR AMONG UNMARRIED YOUNG PEOPLE IN CAMEROON: ANOTHER LOOK AT FAMILY ENVIRONMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most studies of the association between family structure and risky sexual behaviour among adolescents and young adults have employed a risk perspective which assumes that, compared with other types, two-parent families are protective. Drawing from a positive-oriented approach in this study, it is hypothesized that within each family type some influential factors may mitigate such anticipated deleterious effects of non-intact families and decrease sexual risk-taking. The paper examines specifically the effects of risk and protective factors with an emphasis on family processes associated with resilience, using data from a pooled sample of 1025 females and males aged 12-24 years from Bandjoun (West Cameroon). Findings show that the quality of parent/guardian-youth relationships significantly decreases the odds of risky sexual behaviour by 36%, 65% and 50% in neither-, one- and two-parent families, respectively. For two-parent families only, parental control acts as a significant protective factor; it decreased by 41% the odds of risky sexual behaviour. Programmatically, protective family factors such as parent/guardian-youth interactions need to be promoted to improve the efficiency of reproductive health and HIV interventions in sub-Saharan Africa.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".