Family Planning Practices in Rural Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on the various factors that encourage the practice of family planning for rural communities in Malaysia. Family planning program is a modern alternative for married couples in determining the desired number of children in a family in addition to helping women obtain optimal health with birth intervals exist. It is associated in the field of demography which saw control of the birth rate of a family. Key reference data for this study are based on various population and housing census report Malaysia since the 1980s to 2010. This Followed by a field study based on the questionnaire on targeted population. Multivariate Analysis is used to cluster variables to key factors and then evaluated based on the significance of regression analysis as appropriate. The study found that the level of education, understanding husband, and type of work is the most significant factor influencing the practice of family planning. The study found that rural communities have begun to realize its importance but still not be able to receive a variety of modern methods of family planning practice to practice except oral contraceptives. Thus the results of the study provide some suggestions for improving the knowledge society towards good health and fertility potential trend towards the policy proposed by Malaysia's 70 million populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".