MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322720297 · doi:10.1521/bumc.2023.87.1.6

Sexual risk behavior among individuals seeking outpatient mental health services: Associations with childhood emotional neglect and identity dysfunction

2023· article· en· W4322720297 on OpenAlexaff
Alicia Spidel, David Kealy

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Menninger Clinic · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectPsychologyMediationPopulationClinical psychologyMental healthHuman sexualitySexual identityPsychiatrySexual dysfunctionDistressDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was developed to examine sexual risk behavior among patients seeking community-based mental health services, including associations with psychological distress, identity dysfunction, and childhood emotional neglect. A mediation model was examined regarding identity dysfunction mediating the link between emotional neglect and sexual risk behavior. A total of 245 outpatients completed questionnaires regarding perceived risky sexual behavior, psychological distress, identity dysfunction, and emotional neglect. Sexual risk behavior was found to be a prevalent issue among individuals seeking outpatient mental health services, with 13% reporting engagement in unsafe sexual practices at least some of the time. Mediation analysis revealed that childhood emotional neglect was indirectly linked with sexual risk behavior through the mediating effect of identity dysfunction. Thus, findings suggest a pathway to sexual risk behaviors through perceived childhood emotional neglect and identity dysfunction. Clinical attention to identity-related vulnerability among this population may be warranted in aiming to mitigate risk-taking associated with sexual practices.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Menninger ClinicSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207