MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009260977 · doi:10.1017/s0021932009003459

CHANGES IN THE PROXIMATE DETERMINANTS OF FERTILITY DECLINE IN POST-SOCIALIST MONGOLIA

2009· article· en· W2009260977 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thomas Spoorenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biosocial Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de GenèvePetroleum Technology Research Centre
KeywordsFertilitySocioeconomicsGeographyDemographic economicsDevelopment economicsDemographyPolitical scienceEconomic growthPopulationEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mongolian fertility decline has received only limited analysis in the demographic literature. Using the 2003 Reproductive Health Survey of Mongolia the classical proximate determinants of fertility framework proposed by Bongaarts is applied here in order to analyse which factors shape period fertility. The results indicate that the fertility-inhibiting effect of contraception contributed to reduce period fertility by 54.2% from its theoretical maximum, while induced abortion accounted for only 6.1% of the reduction in fertility. Compared with previous studies made in the early 1990s, these results show that important changes in the control of reproduction took place in Mongolia during the fertility transition. In order to assess the changes implied by the transition to democracy and market economy, the proximate determinants of fertility are estimated for the year 1994. The results show that the importance of induced abortion in the determination of fertility level has reduced and that the use of modern contraception has increased progressively and contributed most in determining fertility level in 2003.

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)0.001
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biosocial ScienceSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207