Will It Help? Identifying Socialization Discourses That Promote Sexual Risk and Sexual Health Among African American Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because much of the existing research examining sexual communication to African American youth focuses on demographic and parental factors predicting sexual risk behaviors, less is known about factors predicting sexual health, and little is understood about the contributions of peer communications. The current study aimed to expand existing approaches by assessing which socialization discourses communicated by parents and peers contribute to sexual risk and health outcomes (sexual assertiveness, positive sexual affect, and condom self-efficacy). Participants were 631 African American undergraduates (73% female) who indicated the extent to which they had received from their parents and peers each of 28 messages representing four cultural discourses: abstinence, relational sex, sex positive, and gendered sexual roles. As expected, parents were perceived to emphasize relational sex and abstinence messages more than peers, and peers were perceived to communicate sex-positive and gendered sex role messages more than parents. Greater exposure to abstinence messages predicted lower levels of sexual experimentation, whereas exposure to sex-positive messages predicted higher levels. In addition, exposure to relational sex and sex-positive messages predicted higher levels of sexual assertiveness and positive sexual affect. Implications are discussed concerning sexual communications that could help Black youth develop healthy sexual perspectives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".