MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Global Crisis in Fertility Theory: What Went Wrong?

2009· article· en· W2120970002 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahmuda Khatun

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityPopulationSociologyHumanitiesPositive economicsEthnologyEconomicsPhilosophyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fertility, as a component of population change, caught the attention of many demographers since the relationship between population and society has been established. Even though micro level theories successfully projected trends of fertility at local level but finding a global theory is still a way to go. Macro theories failed to overcome social, cultural, and political boundaries. The solution can go either way. Demographers can all together give up on looking a grand theory. Or they can go for the regional theories because not all economic, social, or cultural mechanism operates equally to lower down fertility. The present paper is an attempt to question the validity of unified theory of fertility, thereby, an attempt to look for a modified version of fertility theory which would be better fit at the regional level. Key words: Fertility, theories of fertility, regional theory, unified theory, validity of fertility theory Resume: La fecondite, comme une composante de l'evolution demographique, a attire l'attention de nombreux demographes depuis que la relation entre la population et la societe a ete etablie. Meme si la theorie micro-niveau a projete a succes les tendances de la fecondite au niveau local mais il y a encore un longue chemin a parcourir a trouver une theorie globale. Macro theorie a echoue a surmonter les bornes sociales, culturelles et politiques. La solution peut aller a l'une ou l'autre route. Les demographes peuvent donner tous ensemble sur la recherche d'une grande theorie. Ou ils peuvent aller pour la theorie regionale parce que ce n’est pas tous le mecanisme economique, social, culturel fonctionne egalement a diminuer la fecondite. Le present document est une tentative de remettre en question la validite de la theorie unifiee de la fecondite, de ce fait, une tentative de chercher une version modifiee de la theorie de feconditequi serait mieux adaptes au niveau regional. Mots-Cles: Fecondite, theorie de fecondite, theorie regional, theorie unifiee, validite de la theorie de fecondite

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.017
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207