MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041439812 · doi:10.5430/rwe.v5n2p135

Relative Cohort Size and Fertility in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Panel Data Approach

2014· article· en· W2041439812 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Linlan Xiao, Michael P. Shields

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in World Economy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityTotal fertility rateCohortDemographyEconomicsCohort effectPopulationPanel dataBirth rateCohort studyLatin AmericansDemographic economicsMedicineEconometricsFamily planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latin America has experienced a considerable decline in fertility over the past decades. The total fertility rate at region level was 4.57 in 1975 and fell to 2.29 in 2012. In this study, we examine effect of cohort size on fertility rate to test the applicability of the Easterlin hypotheses. According to the Easterlin hypotheses the income of young adults relative to the income of their parents is an important determinant of fertility. A major factor influencing relative income is relative cohort size. Persons born in large cohorts face greater difficulty in finding employment than persons born in small cohorts due to increased competition and consequently earn less, and, as a result have fewer children. We introduce relative cohort size into panel data models with the total fertility rate being estimated as a function of cohort size, the labor force participation rate of women, the infant mortality rate, the lagged total fertility rate, and the percent of the population that is urban. The results suggest that the Easterlin hypothesis holds in this region but the effect is weak. On the other hand, advanced medical technology hence decrease in infant mortality rate strongly affect fertility.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in World EconomySame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207