Waarom doen jonge mannen (niet) mee met vragenlijstonderzoek over seksualiteit?:Gendernormen, barrières en motivaties volgens lager opgeleide jonge mannen
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Lower educated young men appear to be more difficult to reach for participation in sexual health research than women and higher educated men. We examined this group's barriers and motivating factors for participation.<br/>Methodology: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between March and July 2022. Participants were approached using convenience sampling. The interviews were deductively, inductively and axially coded using coding software.<br/>Results: Participants often come into contact with the subject of sexuality, but do not easily have serious conversations about it. Young men expect low intrinsic motivation from other men to participate in surveys about sexuality. They explain this low motivation by stereotypical character traits of men and a lack of knowledge of or experience with sexuality. Receiving knowledge would be more motivating than a material reward. Trust in the researchers and privacy are crucial for participation.<br/>Discussion: Participants viewed themselves as a small minority that would participate in health research. Future research could delve deeper into sociological-anthropological theories to explain differences in participation.<br/>Conclusion: Trust and reciprocity in the relationship between researcher and participant are important to increase the participation of lower educated young men. Intangible rewards such as knowledge and altruistic motives can increase participation. Participation can be increased by<br/>linking surveys to interventions that promote knowledge and skills. To increase the participation of young, lower educated men in sexuality research, a transformative social approach towards masculinity norms which extends beyond the sphere of influence of individual researchers<br/>seems necessary.
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.
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 | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 it