MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108976036 · doi:10.1177/000312240607100206

Infant Mortality, Social Networks, and Subsequent Fertility

2006· article· en· W2108976036 on OpenAlexaff
John Sandberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Sociological Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityDemographyMacroPopulationInfant mortalityLinkage (software)Social network (sociolinguistics)Social learningDemographic economicsGeographyPsychologySociologyEconomicsPolitical scienceBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research presented here addresses a longstanding but previously unsupported theoretical proposition related to social learning in the demographic literature. This is that individuals should respond to lower (higher) infant mortality of socially proximate others with decreased (increased) fertility. On a more general level this problem directly concerns the translation of the effects of macro-demographic forces such as mortality into micro-level individual behavior through social interaction. Using unique data that combine identification of individuals belonging to women's social networks with direct measurement of these network members' mortality experience, this research demonstrates such a linkage. Information concerning the level and variation in infant mortality available to women from a small Nepalese mountain population in their social networks is seen to influence the tempo of their fertility. It is suggested that the methodology employed has important implications for quantitative analyses of reciprocal processes of social construction and micro-macro linkages more generally.

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)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations53
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Sociological ReviewSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207