MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1941854942 · doi:10.21083/surg.v3i2.1094

The effects of mothers’ education on the nutritional outcomes of their children in Nicaragua

2010· article· en· W1941854942 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kirk Geale

Bibliographic record

VenueSURG Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusLatin AmericansMalnutritionBirth orderDemographyPopulationPsychologyGeographyMedicinePolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from the 2001 Nicaragua Demographic and Health Survey, this paper examines the relationship of a child’s nutritional health outcomes relative to the completion of secondary education of their mother by measuring her child’s height-for-age and weight-for-height. This study focuses on Nicaragua in particular, in contrast to other literature surveying Latin America as a whole. The persistence of malnutrition amongst the population makes Nicaragua a candidate for research in this area, especially in face of educational reforms in the country approximately 10 years prior. In this study the control variables include paternal education, geographic location, socioeconomic status, birth order, and household size; combined to help attenuate the effects of maternal education. The analysis is subdivided to examine the relation of mothers’ education to health outcomes for children of each gender. It was found that maternal secondary education is significant for all scenarios with the exception of gender-separated weight-for-height, and that there is a stronger correlation between health outcomes for girls than for boys when examining maternal education.

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)0.005
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 score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSURG JournalSame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207