“It’s Not Something You Have to Be Scared About”: Attitudes towards Pregnancy and Fertility among Canadian Aboriginal Young People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using data from a qualitative study on sexual health and condom use among Aboriginal young people in British Columbia, we explore young people’s views on pregnancy, fertility, and how these relate to sexually transmitted infection (STI) vulnerability. During 2004–2005, in-depth individual interviews were conducted with 15 young men and 15 young women who self-identified as Aboriginal. A descriptive thematic analysis is presented here. Aboriginal young people reported that there was some stigma attached to adolescent childbearing in their communities, but also acceptance and some positive norms around adolescent pregnancy. Most young people wanted to delay pregnancy until they were ready; for some, a serious relationship was an acceptable context for pregnancy. In this context, young people’s ambivalence toward pregnancy and concerns about hormonal contraception created a situation where unprotected sex was likely to occur. Families of origin played an important but complex role in shaping behaviour. Interventions that focus solely on condom use are unlikely to reduce rates of STIs among Aboriginal young people, especially those who are ambivalent about pregnancy. Efforts must focus on contextual elements that shape desire for pregnancy to maximize success.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".