Perception, Environmental Degradation and Family Size Preference: a Context of Developing Countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores how people perceive about family size and environmental degradation. Many studies explain people perception to family size or environmental degradation independently. Considering both of the concepts as interrelated, how people consider the relation between family size and environmental degradation, and how their perception subsequently influence on contraceptive use in developing countries. People who think their immediate environment such as land productivity, soil fertility, water level and biodiversity is declining are more concerned about their family size and contraceptive use than who do not think that their environment is declining. Children in poor area or forest area are involved with fuel wood and water collection. Parents especially women perceive additional child as helping hand in domestic work or fuel wood and water collection. In reality socio- economic development particularly women education, participation to reproductive decision and access to contraception, and improvement of environmental qualities such as proper sanitation, drinking water, and environmental awareness are important to change people perception to larger family size. As a result people will start thinking that environmental degradation is the result of over access to natural resources.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it