MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885543960

Sexual behaviour profile of a diverse group of urban youth: An analysis of the Toronto Teen Survey

2010· article· en· W2885543960 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jason D. Pole, Sarah Flicker, Susan Flynn, Crystal Layne, June Larkin, Robb Travers, Hazelle Palmer, Adinne Schwartz, Kristin McIlroy, Adrian Guţă, Roxana Salehl

Bibliographic record

VenueQueensland's institutional digital repository (The University of Queensland) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual orientationPsychologyImmigrationRace (biology)Vulnerability (computing)Association (psychology)Reproductive healthDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyDemographySociologyGeographyGender studiesPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to document the sexual behaviour of an ethnoculturally diverse sample of 1,200 urban youth and to assess the association of their experience of 11 behaviours with such factors as age, gender, immigration, race, religion, location of sexual education and sexual orientation. Grouping of these behaviours into three categories also permitted a similar assessment based on the highest risk category that youth had experienced. The descriptive and statistical findings in relation to race, religion, immigration status, and sexual orientation provide a basis for strengthening sexual health programming for urban youth. They also highlight the need to pay close attention to issues of vulnerability and stereotyping when reflecting on who is and is not engaging in various sexual behaviours.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQueensland's institutional digital repository (The University of Queensland)Same topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207