On the association between sexual attraction and adolescent risk behavior involvement: Examining mediation and moderation.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the basis of a large-scale survey of high-school youth, the authors compared adolescents reporting exclusively heterosexual, mostly heterosexual, bisexual, and predominately same-sex attraction based on high-risk involvement across a range of risk behaviors. Bisexual and same-sex attracted groups were characterized by heightened high-risk involvement relative to the other two groups. Mediation analysis was used to determine whether these group disparities were explained by a set of normative predictive factors spanning multiple life domains. Differences among a combined exclusively/mostly heterosexual attraction group and both the bisexual and same-sex attraction groups were attenuated (66% and 50%, respectively) after incorporating the hypothesized intervening predictive factors, providing evidence of partial mediation. Primary mediators included intrapersonal (attitudes toward risk-taking; academic orientation), interpersonal (peer victimization; parental relationships; unstructured activities), and environmental (substance availability) factors. Mediation results were consistent across participant age and sex. Implications, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it