MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802816966 · doi:10.1111/jora.12394

Love and Dating Patterns for Same‐ and Both‐Gender Attracted Adolescents Across Europe

2018· article· en· W2802816966 on OpenAlexafffund
András Költő, Honor Young, Lorraine Burke, Nathalie Moreau, Alina Cosma, Josefine Magnusson, Béat Windlin, Marta Reis, Elizabeth Saewyc, Emmanuelle Godeau, Saoirse Nic Gabhainn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research on Adolescence · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEötvös Loránd TudományegyetemHáskólinn á AkureyriUnited Nations Development ProgrammeUnited Nations Population FundUNICEF
KeywordsOperationalizationAttractionPsychologySexual orientationPreferenceSexual attractionGender identitySexual identitySocial psychologyIdentity (music)Developmental psychologyPhenomenonSexual behaviorHuman sexualityGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual orientation is a multidimensional phenomenon, which includes identity, behavior, and attraction. The attraction component, however, is less studied than the other two. In this article, we present the development of a two-item measure to identify adolescents who prefer same- and both-gender partners for love and dating. The questions were administered to nationally representative samples of 15-year-old adolescents in eight European countries and regions participating in the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) cross-national study. The distribution of attraction, as operationalized by preference for the gender of love and dating partners, was similar across countries. These questions offer an alternative or supplementary approach to identify same- and both-gender attracted youth, without administering questions related to sexual identity.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.384
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research on AdolescenceSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207