Factors that influence the childbearing intentions of Canadian men
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
BACKGROUND: The role of men in the childbearing decision process and the factors that influence men's childbearing intentions have been relatively unexplored in the literature. This study aimed to describe the factors that strongly influence the childbearing intentions of men and to describe differences in these factors according to men's age group. METHODS: A telephone survey (response rate 84%) was conducted with 495 men between the ages of 20 and 45 living in an urban setting who, at the time of contact, did not have biological children. Men were asked about what factors strongly influence their intention to have children. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to determine if these factors were significantly associated with age. RESULTS: Of those sampled, 86% of men reported that at some point in the future they planned to become a parent. The factors that men considered to be most influential in their childbearing intentions were: the need to be financially secure, their partner's interest/desire to have children, their partner's suitability to be a parent and their personal interest/desire to have children. Men who were 35-45 years old had lower odds of stating that financial security (crude OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.18-0.54) and partner's interest in having children (crude OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.33-0.99) were very influential, but had higher odds of stating that their biological clock (crude OR: 4.37, 95% CI: 1.78-10.76) was very influential in their childbearing intentions than men in the 20-24 year age group. CONCLUSIONS: The factors that influence men's intentions about when to become a parent may change with age. Understanding what influences men to have children, and what they understand about reproductive health is important for education, program and policy development.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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