University students’ condom use during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-cultural differences and what predict them
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
Humans instinctively adopt methods to reduce their risk of encountering harmful pathogens, yet their adherence to preventive health practices can often be erratic. Condoms exemplify one vital preventive tool against sexually transmitted infections (STIs) that, despite their effectiveness, are not consistently utilized. This pattern of behavior appears to persist even during periods of widespread disease transmission, with varied data from the COVID-19 pandemic indicating that condom usage remained inconsistent. The present study aimed to clarify these inconsistencies by examining changes in condom use cross-culturally. Heterosexual participants who were sexually active (N = 3,972 [1,327 men, 2,645 women], Mage = 22.82) across 18 countries were asked about their condom use prior to the pandemic, then about their current use. Results revealed a significant decline in Australia, Canada, Portugal, Vietnam, Uganda, and Taiwan. Vaccination percentage and lockdown stringency were associated with this decline cross-culturally. These findings continue to add concerns about the spread of STIs among young people during the pandemic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it