MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1761245068 · doi:10.58464/2155-5834.1051

A Tale of Two States: What We Learn from California and Texas

2011· article· en· W1761245068 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan R. Tortolero, Paula Cuccaro, Nancy M Tucker, I. Sonali Weerasinghe, Dennis H. Li, Melissa F. Peskin, Ross Shegog, Christine Markham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research on Children Informing Policy for Children at Risk · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusTeen pregnancyQuarter (Canadian coin)Birth rateDemographyEthnic groupState (computer science)Ethnic compositionPublic healthGeographyEconomic growthPolitical scienceGerontologyMedicinePopulationSociologyFertilityEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teen birth rates and teen pregnancy prevention strategies vary widely across individual states in the US, which has the highest overall teen birth rate among developed nations. California and Texas, the two most populous states currently accounting for a quarter of all teen births, have taken very different approaches to addressing adolescent reproductive health. This case study examines the racial/ethnic composition and socioeconomic factors of these two states from 1981 to 2008. State programs and policies implemented between 1991 and 2008 as well as changes in access to contraception and public–private partnerships are discussed. Based on the lessons learned from California, a similar multifaceted campaign in Texas may be effective in reducing teen births.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.465
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Research on Children Informing Policy for Children at RiskSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207