P1-S2.29 Risky sexual practices among youth in Quebec Care Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Adolescents in Youth Protection facilities are a vulnerable population, with difficult life trajectories; many of their behaviours are health compromising. Method Youth aged 14–17, living in semi-urban and urban youth centers in Quebec were recruited on a volunteer basis to participate in the study. Socio-demographic, drug use, sexual behaviours and health service utilisation data were obtained using a structured, face-to-face interview. A urine sample was collected to test for chlamydia and gonorrhoea. Results Between July 2008 and May 2009, 578 youth were interviewed—(♂—58 %); median age—♂—16; ♀—15. The majority of youth were sexually active (89%); two thirds experienced voluntary coitarche before 14 years of age. Median number of lifetime partners was 6 (♂—8, ♀—5). Over a third (41%) reported group sexual activities. A large proportion of youth experienced 50% or more of their sexual activities under the influence of alcohol—18%, cannabis—37%, other drugs—18%. Lifetime history of “never or rarely” using condoms was 24.7% for vaginal relations and 42.1% for anal relations (♂—33%, ♀—55%). Protection used during last vaginal activity was—double protection (condom and another contraceptive method)—25%; condom only—32%; contraceptive method without condom—20%; no protection—24%. A quarter of girls (28%) and boys (27%) reported an unplanned pregnancy (lifetime). Prevalence of chlamydia was—girls 9%, boys 1.9%. No cases of gonorrhoea were documented. Conclusions Youth in Quebec care centers report many risky sexual behaviours, often associated with drug and alcohol use. Only a quarter of youth used protection to prevention both STIs and pregnancy during their last sexual activity. Their sejour in residential care is an opportune moment to screen these youth for risk behaviours that may compromise their future health and to provide them with personalised prevention education and health services adapted to their reality.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
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".