MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rates of Induced Abortion in Iran: The Roles of Contraceptive Use and Religiosity

2008· article· en· W2082422785 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Erfani, Kevin McQuillan

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Family Planning · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryNipissing University
FundersMinistry of Health and Medical Education
KeywordsAbortionReligiosityFamily planningFertilityMedicineTotal fertility rateDemographyPopulationUnsafe abortionObstetricsPregnancyEnvironmental healthResearch methodologyPsychologySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iran has experienced a dramatic decline in fertility in recent decades, but limited access to legal abortion continues to lead many women whose pregnancies are unwanted or mistimed to undergo clandestine, unsafe abortions. No official data on the abortion rate in Iran have been collected, however. This study uses the 2000 Iran Demographic and Health Survey to estimate the abortion rate for the country as a whole and for specific regions, and to explore the role of contraceptive use and religiosity in explaining regional variations in abortion rates. We estimate the total abortion rate for the country to be 0.26 abortions per married woman, and the annual general abortion rate to be 7.5 abortions per 1,000 married women aged 15-49. We find that the negative effect of modern contraceptive use on the abortion rate is 51 percent greater than the negative effect of religiosity, and we highlight the implications of these findings for policies on reproductive health and family

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)0.006
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations66
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Family PlanningSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207