Associations of Risk of Depression with Sexual Risk Taking among Adolescents in Nova Scotia High Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Several interrelated factors, including depression, influence adolescents' chances of risky sexual behaviour. We examined the relation between depression and sexual risk-taking behaviours in adolescents after accounting for the effects of other variables. METHOD: We surveyed male (n = 1120) and female (n = 1177) adolescents at 4 high schools in central Nova Scotia, measuring factors known to be associated with sexual risk taking. Risk of depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Outcomes were self-reported sexual behaviours. We used logistic regression to assess associations of multiple factors with sexual risk taking. RESULTS: In univariate analyses, risk of depression was associated with 3 risk-taking behaviours for females (being sexually active, having unplanned sex when using substances, and not using effective contraception at last intercourse) and 2 for males (having unplanned sex when using substances and having more than 1 partner in the previous year). In full multivariate models, risk of depression in females remained significantly associated with unplanned sex and nonuse of effective contraception at last intercourse, but was no longer associated with being sexually active. For males, both associations remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of depression is consistently and independently associated with adolescent sexual risk behaviours after adjusting for other variables. Health care providers working with teenagers should screen for risky sexual behaviours and sexually transmitted infections if depression is apparent in their patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".