Social epidemiology of online dating in U.S. early adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence and sociodemographic associations of online dating in a demographically diverse U.S. national cohort of early adolescents. METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (Year 2, 2018-2020, ages 11-12; N = 10,157). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were employed to estimate associations between sociodemographic factors (e.g., age, sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, household income, parental education) and early adolescent-reported online dating behaviors. RESULTS: Overall, 0.4% (n = 38) of participants reported ever using a dating app. Males (AOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.11-6.78) had higher odds of online dating compared to females, and sexual minority identification (e.g., lesbian, gay, or bisexual; AOR 12.97, 95% CI 4.32-38.96) was associated with greater odds of online dating compared to heterosexual identification. CONCLUSION: Given the occurrence of online dating among early adolescents despite age restrictions, interventions might address age misrepresentation. Adolescent sexual health education may consider incorporating anticipatory guidance on online dating, especially for males and sexual minorities. Future research could further investigate online dating patterns from early to late adolescence and associated health effects.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".