Measuring the intensity of pregnancy planning effort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study validated a measure of pregnancy planning effort based on Miller's conceptual framework in two clinical settings. The questionnaire's main items deal with general behaviour with regard to pregnancy, timing and proception (proception being the reverse of contraception). Values for these three items are added to yield a continuous score ranging from 0 to 12. The study population comprised 448 women of different cultural backgrounds recruited in prenatal, fertility and family planning clinics in Quebec and North Carolina. The results indicate that the internal consistency between the three items pertaining to pregnancy planning was excellent (Cronbach's alpha of 0.83). Test-retest reliability after a 4-week interval was excellent, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.86 for the planning score. The planning score median for women attending family planning clinics (1.00) was significantly lower than that for those recruited in fertility clinics (11.00), confirming the discriminant ability of the instrument. Path analysis shows that the conceptual model corroborates the observed data and explains 53% of the pregnancy planning variability. In conclusion, this is the first questionnaire specifically designed to assess the intensity of pregnancy planning effort, a potentially important variable in epidemiological studies and clinical practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".