Condom use motivations and selected behaviours with new versus established sex partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Objective To compare condom use motives and behaviours in the context of penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI) with new versus established sexual partners, using daily event-level data among a clinic-recruited sample. METHODS: Participants (ages 15-65 years old) were recruited from five sexually transmissible infection (STI) clinics in three United States cities. They were provided with personal digital assistants and instructed to respond to daily questionnaire items regarding PVI events from the past 24h. Generalised estimations equations were used to make inferences on age-adjusted estimated odds ratios, comparing events occurring with established versus new partners. RESULTS: For males, pregnancy prevention was a more common motivation for condom use in new relationships (P<0.001). Males with new sex partners were more likely to report condom use (P<0.005) and also reported fewer errors or problems in condom use with new sex partners (P<0.001). For females, pregnancy prevention (P=0.03), STI acquisition (P<0.001) and STI transmission (P=0.005) were more likely to be motives for condom use with new versus established partners. Also, females with new sex partners were more likely to report condom use (P<0.001) as well as using multiple condoms during a single event (P=0.03). CONCLUSION: Event-level findings suggest that condom use motivations and behaviours vary depending on whether PVI occurs between established versus new sex partners. Condom use is more likely for PVI with new partners, but other condom-associated behaviours and motivations differ between females and males.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".