Most Scandinavians Are Born During Summer Time and Less Norwegians Are Born the First Quarter of the Year: A Study Comparing Scandinavian Birth Patterns 2000-2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Summer time is a challenging period in obstetric care as many health care workers are on holiday. We aimed to explore the Scandinavian birth patterns and the Norwegian kindergarten reform's possible influence on time of delivery in Norway. METHODS: A retrospective analysis using data (2000-12) from the medical birth registries of Denmark, Norway and Sweden was carried out. Annual data for each country were compared. The first five years (2000-2004) period was compared with the periods 2005-2009 and 2010-2012 to clarify any changing trend in month and seasons of delivery. Furthermore, the time period following the Norwegian kindergarten reform (2010-12) was compared with the time period 2000-2009. In total, there were 760,168 Norwegians, 827,354 Danes and 1,354,177 Swedes born during study period. RESULTS: Whereas the number of deliveries increased in Sweden (24%) and Norway (3%), there was a 12% reduction in Denmark during study period. Comparing seasons, most births (35.3%) occurred during summer time (May-August). In Norway, there was a significant change during study period with fewer children born between January and April (P < 0.04) and more during summer time (P < 0.01). The lower percentage of births during the last quarter of the year was stable in all countries. CONCLUSION: Most Scandinavians were born during summer time. During study period a significant shift of births from spring to summer time was observed in Norwegians. So far, the Norwegian kindergarten reform has not influenced on the birth rate between September and December.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".