MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142911817 · doi:10.1300/j013v41n03_04

Social Network Normative Influence and Sexual Risk-Taking Among Women Seeking a New Partner

2005· article· en· W2142911817 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicole Dedobbeleer, Pauline Morissette, Célia Rojas-Viger

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen & Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyCondomFeelingNormativeSocial network (sociolinguistics)Normative social influencePsychological interventionSocial supportNewspaperDevelopmental psychologySocial mediaHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)AdvertisingMedicinePolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the relative influence of social network norms on sexual risk-taking among women seeking a new partner in Quebec (Canada). A survey was conducted among 430 women, 30 to 54 years of age, and living without a partner. Condom use is significantly influenced by the norms of women's different social networks: confidants, social circles through which they meet partners (e.g., family, friends, internet or newspapers virtual communities), with a minority following prescribed condom use habits. Further the results indicate that among the study participants the search for love and well being, social proximity, feelings of trust and intimacy that appear to evolve almost instantly in new encounters, are in conflict with the prescribed condom-use norms. These results suggest that there is a need to build new norms for starting relationships, for improved dialogue among women and between women and men on affective solitude. The findings also underscore the need for public health interventions that seek to influence social networks as well as the behavior of individuals.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen & HealthSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207