Associations between externalizing behavior problems and risky sexual behaviors in adolescence: Attachment as a mediator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Risky sexual behaviors in adolescence are associated with negative health and psychological functioning outcomes. Although the association between behavior problems and risky sexual behaviors is well established, addressing these problems requires understanding the mechanisms that help explain this association. Adolescent attachment, while related to risky sexual behavior, has not been extensively explored as an outcome of childhood externalizing problems. The two objectives of this study were to explore the links between parental and peer attachment and risky sexual behaviors and to examine the mediating effect of attachment on the links between behavior problems and risky sexual behaviors. METHODS: at T3 = 17.35) participated in this longitudinal study. RESULTS: The quality of parental attachment at T2 was significantly and negatively associated with risky sexual behaviors 3 years later, at T3. More specifically, a lower quality parental attachment relationship was associated with having nonexclusive partners as well as with inconsistent condom use. Finally, parental attachment (T2) was a significant mediator between behavior problems (T1) and risky sexual behaviors (T3), but only for younger adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that in addition to behavior problems in adolescence, the quality of parental attachment relationships may help in understanding risky sexual behaviors in adolescence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".