MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914977924 · doi:10.1177/0265407519826350

Influences of sexual behaviors and vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among heterosexual ACB youth living in Windsor, Ontario

2019· article· en· W2914977924 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tiyondah Fante-Coleman, Ciann Wilson, Ashley Ann Marcotte, Raymond M. McKie, Robb Travers, Ellis Furman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social and Personal Relationships · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyWindsorDevelopmental psychologyVulnerability (computing)NormativeThematic analysisHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Focus groupHuman sexualitySocial psychologyGender studiesSociologyQualitative researchMedicinePolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little research has investigated relationships among heterosexual African, Caribbean, and Black (ACB) youth and the factors that influence their behavior and the behavioral expectations they have of their sexual partners. This study identifies influential factors of behavioral expectations, and how this behavior shapes vulnerability for human immunodeficiency virus. This article draws on data from the POWER project in Windsor, Canada. Six focus groups were held and attended by 26 ACB youth, and data were analyzed following thematic analysis guidelines. ACB youth adhered to gender roles prescribed through cultural heritage and religion. Gender inequality persists among young ACB youth, and sociopolitical history is hypothesized to shape normative gender roles, influencing relationship behaviors.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social and Personal RelationshipsSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207