MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W157259447 · doi:10.1017/s0021932008002952

DOES SEX OF CHILDREN MATTER? IMPLICATIONS FOR FERTILITY IN PAKISTAN

2008· article· en· W157259447 on OpenAlexaff
ALI MUHAMMAD

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biosocial Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilitySocioeconomic statusPreferenceDaughterDemographyUnemploymentPsychologyPopulationSociologyEconomicsEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preference for children of either sex is considered a constraint on fertility decline as it induces many couples to keep adding on surviving children in the hope of having a desired sex composition of children. However, preferences for children of a particular sex may differ in relation to demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of women, traditional values and cultural practices, such as propagating a family name, providing economic advantages, and obtaining a medium of social and economic security in times of illness, unemployment and old age. Utilizing the Pakistan Integrated Household Survey (2001-02), this paper aims at investigating the existence of sex preference and examines sex preference differentials by different attributes of women in Pakistan. The results reveal that there is a desire to have another child in the presence of all children of one sex, either sons or daughters. The desire to have a son with only or mostly daughters, however, is stronger than the desire to have a daughter with only or mostly sons. This behaviour will retard fertility decline unless there is a shift in the desire to have children of both sexes in Pakistan.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biosocial ScienceSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207