MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determinants of Immunization Among Children Aged 12-23 Months in Ethiopia: A Proportional Odds Model Approach

2015· article· en· W2108852559 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mesay Tefera, Mahendra Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrdered logitLogistic regressionOddsImmunizationDemographyPublic health interventionsPsychological interventionMedicineOrdinal regressionDescriptive statisticsPublic healthRegression analysisEnvironmental healthStatisticsImmunologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Childhood immunization is recognized as one of the most cost-effective public health interventions to prevent morbidity and mortality caused by infectious diseases, particularly in a high-endemic setting. According to the 2011 EDHS report by the Central Statistical Agency (CSA) of Ethiopia, nationally, only 24 percent of children age 12-23 months was fully immunized at the time of the survey. The main objective of this study was to identify and describe the determinants of immunization among children aged 12-23 months in Ethiopia. The source of the data was the Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey conducted in 2011 (EDHS) 2011. In order to meet our objectives descriptive, and ordinal logistic regression (proportional odds model) statistical techniques were used for data analysis using socio-economic and demographic variables as explanatory variables and immunization status of children aged 12-23 months as the response variable. The results of the analysis predicts that place of delivery, wealth index, possession of radio and region were found to be significant determinants for full immunization among children aged 12-23 months in Ethiopia.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical ResearchSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207