The effects of gender and socioeconomic status on youth sexual-risknorms: evidence from a poor urban community in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV and AIDS remains one of the most serious problems facing youths in many sub-Saharan African countries. Among young people in South Africa, gender is linked with a number of HIV-risk behaviours and outcomes. The literature suggests that factors such as socioeconomic status, intimate partner violence, and several psychosocial factors contribute to gendered differences in sexual behaviour among youths in South Africa. However, the existing body of literature scarcely addresses the interaction between gender, confounding factors (particularly peer norms) and sexual behaviour outcomes. This study uses a survey design (n = 809) to examine how gender and socioeconomic status moderate the effects of norms and attitudes on higher-risk sexual behaviours among secondary school learners in a low-income community in South Africa. The findings suggest that gender interacts significantly with peer norms to predict sexual behaviour. Peer norms and the experience of intimate partner violence were significantly associated with sexual risk behaviour among girls participating in the study. The article discusses both the wider implications of these findings and the implications for school-based and peer-facilitated HIV interventions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".