Condom use in penile-vaginal intercourse among Canadian adults: Results from the sex in Canada survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This paper examines condom use in penile-vaginal sexual intercourse among adults in Canada. DATA AND METHOD: The Sex in Canada survey is a national survey of Canadian adults, ages 18+ (N = 2,303). The online survey used quota-based population sample matching of 2016 census targets for gender, age, region, language, visible minority status, and education level. We report general patterns of self-reported condom use, as well as results from zero-inflated negative binomial regression models on the relationship between condom use and social location, relationship status, and sexual health. RESULTS: Condom use varies by gender, age, education, visible minority status, and relationship status. Use of condoms is related to the perception of risk of being diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection in the next six months and to the experience of receiving lessons in condom use. No significant associations were found between condom use and region, rural/urban residence, income, or religion. Among men, but not women, condom use is associated with language preference, past diagnosis with a sexually transmitted infection, and self-reported sexual health. CONCLUSION: Canadian adults report using a condom in approximately 30% of their sexual encounters involving penile-vaginal sex. Condom use is highest among young adults. Single people use condoms more often than people with marital or common-law partners. Condom use is higher among those with higher levels of education, among people belonging to visible minorities relative to white people, and for men relative to women. People who think they are likely to be diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection in the next six months are more likely to use condoms than those who do not.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".