MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006596742 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v5n5p181

Barriers of Modern Contraceptive Practices among Asian Women: A Mini Literature Review

2013· review· en· W2006596742 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fatemeh Najafi-Sharjabad, Sharifah Zainiyah Syed Yahya, Hejar Abdul Rahman, Muhamad Hanafiah Juni, Rosliza Abdul Manaf

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineAlternative medicineTraditional medicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family planning has been cited as essential to the achievement of Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Family planning has a direct impact on women's health and consequence of each pregnancy. The use of modern contraception among Asian women is less than global average. In Asia a majority of unintended pregnancies are due to using traditional contraceptive or no methods which lead to induced unsafe abortion. Cultural attitudes, lack of knowledge of methods and reproduction, socio demographic factors, and health service barriers are the main obstacles to modern contraceptive practice among Asian women. Culturally sensitive family planning program, reforming health system, and reproductive health education through mass media to create awareness of the benefits of planned parenthood are effective strategies to improve modern contraceptive practice among Asian women.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations137
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207