MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mothers Who Do and Do Not Intend to Discuss Sexual Health With Their Young Adolescents

2012· article· en· W2021229046 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

VenueFamily Relations · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyReproductive healthDevelopmental psychologyPerceptionSexual behaviorSexually activeClinical psychologyPopulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study distinguished two groups of mothers who have not communicated with their young adolescents about sexual health based on their intentions of having these discussions. We also compared these 2 groups to mothers who have had such communications. Overall, 29% of mothers had engaged in sexual discussions with their adolescent in some detail (active group), 22% intended to do so in the next 6 months (intender group), and 49% did not intend to do so in the next 6 months (nonintender group). Higher scores on variables consistent with the integrative model of behavioral prediction (parent knowledge, comfort, attitudes, perceptions of social norms, and self‐efficacy for sexual communication) differentiated the 3 groups: The active group had the highest scores, the nonintender group had the lowest scores, and the scores of the intender group fell in between. Group membership varied by sexual topic. Suggestions for enhancing parent‐adolescent sexual communication 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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.299 · 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