Remembering the message: The use of a reminder cue to increase condom use following a safer sex intervention.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Condom use interventions may be more powerful if they provide cues to recall safe-sex messages when sexual activity occurs. The authors tested this notion by assigning sexually active introductory psychology students (N = 196) to a standard safe-sex intervention, a safe-sex with reminder intervention, or a control (drinking and driving) intervention. Participants assigned to the reminder intervention were given a "friendship bracelet" to wear and were instructed to have the bracelet remind them of the intervention. In a follow-up session (5-7 weeks later), they were asked questions pertaining to condom use. Of the 125 participants who had engaged in sexual intercourse, condom use at last intercourse was higher in the bracelet condition (55%) than in the standard (27%) or control (36%) conditions. The authors also found that the bracelet remained effective, even when participants were under the influence of alcohol. These findings therefore imply that health intervention programs may be more efficacious if they include strategies such as reminder cues to increase the salience of health information in the appropriate contexts.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".