MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101110520 · doi:10.25336/p6v616

Consensual Unions in Burkina Faso: Trends and Determinants

2009· article· en· W2101110520 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Thomas Legrand, Younoussi Zourkaleini

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohabitationDemographic economicsFertilityPolitical scienceSociologyPopulationDemographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines entry into consensual unions versus marriages in Burkina Faso, a topic that has received little attention to date in sub-Saharan Africa. Changes in marriage behaviors may entail or reflect profound changes in family organization, gender relations and fertility and, to the extent that consensual unions are relatively transitory and lead to more sexual partners, they may be associated with greater sexual risks including HIV. The determinants of new unions being consensual are estimated from national family-life type survey data that provide information on the timing of different types of marriages and the start of cohabitation. While consensual unions are not new to the country, they appear to be changing in nature and have been growing more common over time especially in urban areas. They are also more popular among men and women with greater schooling or who began cohabiting while living outside the country, and for women who have previously lived in union.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207