Assessing knowledge of AIDS : concern and behavioural change among university students / Lisa A. Bell. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The escalating prevalence of Acquired Immune Deficiency \nSyndrome has precipitated many efforts aimed at informing \nthe public about the deadly AIDS virus and how to avoid \ninfection. Since the university population consists \nlargely of single young adults, many of whom are sexually \nactive, it is an important target population for AIDS \neducation. The present study examined through the use of \nan AIDS Questionnaire (AIDSQ), the relationships among \nknowledge about AIDS, concern, barriers to change, and \nbehavioural change. The AIDSQ was administered to 121 \nfemale and 38 male introductory psychology students \nattending a Northern Ontario University. Results \nindicated that knowledge alone was not sufficient to \nproduce behavioural change. Several factors which did \nappear to be related to behaviour change included level \nof concern about contracting AIDS, confidence in one's \nability to estimate the risks associated with one's \nbehaviour, confidence in the effectiveness of the \nrecommended behavioural changes for avoiding AIDS, and \nthe degree of comfort felt engaging in the recommended \nbehaviours. Implications for future educational \ninterventions and research are discussed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".