MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995715947 · doi:10.1177/2167696819893550

Sexual Trajectories During Adolescence and Adjustment in Emerging Adulthood

2019· article· en· W2995715947 on OpenAlexaff
Erika Rossi, François Poulin, Marie-Aude Boislard

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging Adulthood · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychosocialDevelopmental psychologyDepression (economics)Latent growth modelingSexually activeEducational attainmentYoung adultClinical psychologyDemographyPopulationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined how adolescents’ sexual trajectories are associated with achievement of emerging adulthood developmental tasks (educational attainment, full-time employment, romantic involvement) and psychosocial outcomes (problems with alcohol, depression, self-esteem). Trajectories (identified in a previous report by Rossi, Poulin, & Boislard) based on annual number of sexual partners from ages 16 to 22 (i.e., abstainers, low-increasing, medium-increasing, multiple partners’ trajectories) were compared on outcomes measured at age 22. Results showed that youths in the two less sexually active trajectories achieved higher levels of education than those in the two other trajectories, and females (but not males) in the multiple partners’ group reported more problems with alcohol than all other participants. The absence of significant differences in depression and self-esteem suggests that the impact of adolescent sexual trajectories on psychological outcomes might take longer to emerge.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging AdulthoodSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207