MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026141125 · doi:10.1080/00224499.2020.1753638

Reasons Lesbian and Bisexual Adolescent Girls Have or Might Have Sex with Females or Males: Implications for Discordance between Sexual Identity and Behaviors and for Prevention of Pregnancy and STIs

2020· article· en· W3026141125 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Rosario, Carol Goodenow, Michele L. Ybarra, Elizabeth Saewyc, Tonya L. Prescott

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianPsychologyPleasureSexual identityDevelopmental psychologyHomosexualityIdentity (music)Clinical psychologyHuman sexualityGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 193); the classification was validated. Love and pleasure were common reasons for having sex with girls, although more lesbian girls (LG) than bisexual girls (BG) endorsed love. BG, relative to LG, had sex with girls because they were curious or wanted to verify their sexual identity. Love and pleasure were motives for having sex with boys for BG. They were common reasons for potentially having sex with either sex among sexually inexperienced girls, but both were more likely for BG than LG for sex with boys. Internalized homonegativity did not mediate the relation between sexual identity and reasons for sex, but LG just with male partners were more homonegative than LG just with female partners. The findings indicate that LG and BG should not be combined into a single group, provide insights into the discordance between sexual identity and behaviors, and have implications for reducing risk for pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections among sexual minority girls.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.392
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sex ResearchSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207