Attitudes toward condom carriers: The role of gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed personal attitudes and perceptions of societal attitudes toward condom carriers, with a focus on the role of gender. Although prior research suggests that sexually active women in society are looked down upon, there has been little investigation as to whether this view remains pertinent today, and whether this remains the case at the individual—as opposed to societal—level. Participants were female undergraduate students who read vignettes describing either a male or female condom carrier. They then rated the condom carrier’s character and provided estimates of how their peers would rate the same individual. The young women in our sample did not negatively judge female condom carriers; in fact, they viewed a female condom carrier more favourably than a male condom carrier. Similarly, they endorsed beliefs that other women in society (i.e., their female peers) would not differently rate a condom carrier based on gender. However, women believed that their male peers would be significantly more critical of a female, as opposed to a male, condom carrier. The relation to ambivalent sexism is discussed, as well as the implications that these findings may have on an individual’s own beliefs and practices surrounding condom use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".