Concept Analysis of Pregnancy Planning Drawn from Women of Childbearing Age
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
Pregnancy planning is becoming an important issue in preconception health promotion. Unfortunately, its definition and measurement remain imprecise. This article will develop an operational definition and identify essential components of the concept of pregnancy planning. Six steps from Walker and Avant’s concept analysis procedure were used. Data were collected through a literature review, interviews with key informants, and three focus groups. The concept analysis yielded a conceptual framework comprising three essential components: attitude, timing, and sexual behavior. Pregnancy planning is defined as the adoption of an attitude centered on conception, including sexual behaviors (proceptive or contraceptive) and timing. Moreover, pregnancy planning is not a clear-cut phenomenon with questions that can be answered simply with “yes” or “no”. Rather, it is a dynamic process that evolves according to contextual factors. From these results, an instrument evaluating the intensity of pregnancy planning can be developed for epidemiological research and promotional purposes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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