MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242607694 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14652009.v1

Impact of victimization during youth on adult high-risk sexual behaviour among gay and bisexual men

2021· preprint· en· W4242607694 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler G. Tulloch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityBriercrest College and SeminaryYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyOperationalizationAnxietyDepression (economics)Social anxietyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyHomosexualitySocial stressPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the minority stress model, this study examines the impact of general and gay-specific childhood teasing on adult high-risk sexual behaviour among gay and bisexual men, mediated by depression and social anxiety. High-risk sexual behaviour was operationalized as the number of acts of unprotected anal intercourse with a partner of opposite or unknown HIV status, and also as the number of partners of opposite or unknown HIV status with whom an individual engaged in unprotected anal intercourse. Depression, social anxiety, and retrospective self-report of childhood teasing were measured at baseline, and sexual behaviour was measured at 6-month follow-up. Results indicate that gay-specific teasing, but not general teasing, was indirectly associated with number of high-risk sex acts via depression. Additionally, both types of teasing were directly associated with number of high-risk sex partners after accounting for depression and social anxiety.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207