MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1653973986

[Few teenage pregnancies in Sweden--a comparison between five Western industrialized countries. Support from and attitudes in the society explain the differences].

2003· article· en· W1653973986 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Danielsson, Christina Rogala, Kajsa Sundström

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityTeenage pregnancyDeveloped countryAbstinenceSexuality educationSexual abstinencePregnancyDemographyFertilitySexual behaviorPopulationPsychologyFamily planningSex educationDevelopmental psychologyGender studiesSociologyResearch methodologyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-national comparisons of teenage sexual and reproductive behavior in five Western industrialized countries show vast differences in teenage pregnancy rates and birthrates. The lowest rates are found in Sweden and France, moderate rates in Canada and Great Britain, and the highest in the USA. Since age and frequency of sexual activity are similar across countries, the variations in pregnancy rate reflect young people's motivation and ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Sweden and France offer the most positive attitudes to sexuality combined with a clear expectation that teenagers can make responsible decision about sexuality and delay childbearing. Societal acceptance of teenage sexuality is reflected in open-minded sexuality education and easy access to contraceptive services. In contrast the official message in USA is to delay childbearing until marriage by abstinence only, and use of contraceptives is not supported. Differences in societal support for employment and education also played a major role.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207