Risky sexual behavior of Belarusian adolescents: ten-year dynamics and comparison with foreign data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the context of depopulation, the problem of risky sexual behavior among adolescents represents a potential demographic threat to the Republic of Belarus and, therefore, requires thorough investigation. AIM: To characterize the sexual behavior of Belarusian adolescents aged 15–18 over the last 10–15 years and compare these data with foreign studies. Materials and METHODS: The survey was conducted on a quota-based national sample of adolescents (n=1254) aged 15–18 years from November 01, 2022, to May 31, 2023. The database was developed and registered as a copyrighted work. A comparison was made with a similar study conducted in 2010–2011 (n=949). To compare with foreign data, materials from the Health Behavior of School-Age Children project, conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2021–2022 across 42 countries in Europe, Central Asia, and Canada, were used. RESULTS: Belarusian adolescents become sexually active one year later than their foreign peers. At age 15, one in 13 boys and one in 17 girls report sexual activity, compared with one in five boys and one in seven girls abroad. By age 16, one in five girls and one in four boys are sexually active. By age 17, the proportion of sexually experienced young men is significantly higher. International data show differences between regions and countries. For Belarus, the influence of the residence factor has not been established. The majority of sexually active adolescents consider adolescence to be the optimal age for initiation, indicating a lack of understanding of the risks. Similar to their foreign peers, one in three Belarusian adolescents report that they did not use contraception during their last sexual intercourse. Belarusian young men, like their foreign peers, show a significantly higher risk of casual sexual relations, regardless of their place of residence. The comparison of data from 2010–2011 and 2022–2023 shows that young people choose unverified sources of information about sexual relations. These trends, therefore, cannot be characterized as positive. CONCLUSION: Despite much more favorable data in comparison with the countries of Western Europe, Asia, and Canada, as well as some positive shifts observed between 2010 and 2023, the sexual behavior of Belarusian adolescents still remains risky for their health and future reproductive potential.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".