A comparison of migrants to, and women born in, urban Mongolia: demographic, reproductive, anthropometric and lifestyle characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mongolia has experienced vast migration from rural to urban areas since the 1950s. We hypothesized that women migrating to Ulaanbaatar, the capital, would differ in factors related to future chronic disease risk compared with women who were born in Ulaanbaatar. METHODS: Premenopausal mothers (aged <44 years) of children attending two schools (one in the city centre and one in the outskirts) in Ulaanbaatar were recruited for the study. During April and May 2009, 420 women were interviewed about migration, reproductive history and lifestyle factors and anthropometric measurements were taken. RESULTS: Women born in (n=178) and outside (n=242) Ulaanbaatar were similar in education and marital status, but the latter appeared to have a more traditional lifestyle including being more likely to have lived as a nomadic herder (22.3% vs 5.6%; p<0.001) and to currently live in a traditional yurt or ger (40.1% vs 29.2%). Ever-use of hormonal contraception was more common in women born outside Ulaanbaatar (52.1% vs 38.2%; p=0.005) and their age at first live birth was older (26.0% vs 20.8% for ≥ 25 vs <25 years). Although the number of pregnancies was similar, the number of live births was greater for those born outside Ulaanbaatar (p=0.002). Women born in Ulaanbaatar were more likely to have smoked cigarettes (24.7% vs 11.2%; p<0.001). Women born outside Ulaanbaatar were more likely to consume the traditional meat and dairy diet. CONCLUSION: Rural migrants to Mongolia's capital have retained a traditional lifestyle in some, but not all, respects. Internal migrant populations may provide the opportunity to assess the effect of changes in isolated risk factors for subsequent chronic disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".