The age pattern of fecundability: An analysis of French Canadian and Hutterite birth histories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the age pattern of effective fecundability from populations with no evidence of deliberate fertility control using a new convolution model of fecundability. The analysis is based on a sample of Hutterite birth histories from the mid-20th century, and birth histories of French Canadians from the 17th and 18th centuries. The main findings are as follows: 1) the level of effective fecundability is higher among the French Canadians compared to the Hutterites; 2) effective fecundability peaks at age 20 for the Hutterites, and in the early to mid-20s for the French Canadians; 3) Hutterite effective fecundability declines almost linearly from age 20 to 45, and French Canadian effective fecundability declines slowly from its peak to the early 30s, and more rapidly at older ages; and 4) the duration of postpartum amenorrhea is longer for the French Canadians than for the Hutterites. Because of the shorter periods of postpartum amenorrhea the Hutterites have about the same average number of children as the French Canadians, even though the French Canadians have higher effective fecundability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".