Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problems and future prospects Praised for saving China from a demographic catastrophe or blamed as a violation of a basic human right, the one child family policy (OCFP) is reaching its 25th year and a recent law1 has confirmed this demographic strategy for the future. The government decision to limit the number of children to one per couple, taken in 1979, was a response to the threat that the country’s massive demographic growth cast on the future of economic development and of living conditions of the Chinese people. The goal set was to limit the total population to about 1.2 billion for the year 2000 and to significantly reduce the natural increase rate.2 The OCFP has been implemented—with some exceptions to the rule and a varying severity3,4—mainly through economic incentives and aids for families with a single child, and taxes, fines, and various social disadvantages for the families who do not abide by the rule,5 together with a strong social pressure on women not to have a second pregnancy. The acceptance of the OCFP on the part of the people has been sometimes reported as difficult5 as the rule seems to conflict with the deep rooted Confucian tradition that emphasises the importance of numerous offspring, in order to pass on the responsibility of supporting the old people and of perpetuating traditions. Coercion to oblige women to sterilisation, abortion, or insertion of IUDs has also been reported.5,6 A quarter century after its introduction the OCFP has achieved most of its objectives. The birth of 250–300 million Chinese has been prevented and the rate of natural increase dropped from 11.6 per thousand in 1979 to 8 per thousand in 2001. The population of China was 1273 million in the 2000 census and the …
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".