Young adolescents’ responsiveness to sexual communication with their mother: Distinguishing diverse intentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is unlikely that parents can have effective sexuality discussions with their adolescent if the adolescent is not responsive to their efforts. We evaluated young adolescents' intentions of being responsive to sexual communication with their mother and whether youths who were likely, ambivalent, or unlikely to be responsive differed on their characteristics, features of previous sexual communication, and features of the mother-adolescent relationship. METHODS: Participants were 259 Canadian adolescents (12-14 years; 53% girls) who received and returned a survey by mail. They completed measures of responsiveness intentions, expected outcomes of sexual communication, extent of past sexual communication, the frequency with which mothers encouraged questions and provided information about sexuality topics, open communication, and mothers' provision of warmth, structure, and autonomy support. RESULTS: We found that 37% of adolescents were likely to be responsive to sexual communication with their mother, 34% were ambivalent, and 29% were unlikely to be responsive. Youths' responsiveness intentions were general rather than topic-specific. A discriminant analysis showed that only features of previous sexual communication separated all three groups whereas specific mother-adolescent relationship features (open communication and structure) and one adolescent characteristic (expected outcomes) separated the unlikely group from the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Young adolescents' intentions of being responsive to sexual communication from their mother are diverse yet general in nature. Mothers' engagement in sexual communication appears essential for youths' openness to these discussions. Enhancing specific mother-adolescent relationship features and youths' outcome expectations may shift adolescents who are resistant to sexuality discussions to being more sure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".