Level of Sexual Health Knowledge and One-Night Stand Relationships among University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of sexual and reproductive health is believed to improve healthy sexual attitudes and behaviors, and decrease sexual risk-taking behaviors. Casual sexual relationships, such as one-night stand relationships, have become pervasive practices among heterosexual college students in the United States, despite imposing negative consequences on individuals’ sexual and reproductive health outcomes. This study employed a cross-sectional method to explore the relationship between the knowledge of sexual and reproductive health and a belief in one-night stand relationships among 804 university students in the United States. Participants answered a questionnaire from the World Health Organization, administrated through Qualtrics software. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and logistic regression analyses were performed. Significant findings were reported by unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios with 95% CI. The findings of this research showed that there was a positive relationship between the level of knowledge and a belief in a one-night stand relationship. The findings also showed that male students are more likely to report a belief in one-night stand relationships compared to female students. In addition, a large number of students did not receive information about condom use, and there was a significant negative correlation between being religious and a belief in one-night stands. This study offers insight into the inadequacy of sexual health knowledge among university students. It also suggests that gender-specific knowledge should be a necessary part of the sexual and reproductive health education programs. Clinical and public health implications are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".