Adolescents’ comfort answering questions about sexuality asked by their physicians
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the attitudes of adolescents toward communicating with their doctor about different aspects of their sexuality. METHODS: The present descriptive survey was conducted with the participation of teenagers from four high schools in Sherbrooke, Quebec. In each school, the students of two grade 8 classes (≤14 years of age) and two grade 10 classes (≥15 years of age) anonymously completed a self-administered questionnaire. Permission from the school board and parental consent for every participant was obtained. RESULTS: A total of 387 adolescents completed the self-administered questionnaire. The response rate for the study was 98%. Only 27% of the respondents remembered being questioned by their doctor about sexuality, and 17% of the respondents had already brought up the topic of sexuality themselves with their doctor. More than one-half (57%) of the adolescents reported they would be moderately comfortable to totally comfortable discussing sexuality with their doctor if they felt the need to. Overall, when asked to evaluate their degree of comfort if questioned on specific questions about their sexuality, 73.8% to 99.5% believed they would be moderately to totally comfortable responding. Nevertheless, there was a statistically significant difference between age groups, with the older age group being more comfortable than the younger age group (P<0.001). There was no difference between the level of comfort among boys and girls answering the same questions. Respondents believed that their treating physician should discuss sexuality with them (73.8%) and, in the majority of cases (78%), that he/she should initiate the conversation. CONCLUSION: Regardless of age or sex, teenagers considered themselves to be at ease discussing sexuality with their doctor and found it an important topic best brought up by their practitioner.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it