Determinants of Tubal Ligation in Puebla, Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tubal ligation provides an effective and reliable method by which women can choose to limit the number of children they will bear. However, because of the irreversibility of the procedure and other potential disadvantages, it is important to understand factors associated with women's choice of this method of birth control. Between May 1999 and August 2000, data were collected from 755 women aged 40 to 60 years from a cross-section of neighborhoods of varying socio-economic make-up in Puebla, Mexico, finding a tubal ligation rate of 42.2%. Multiple logistic regression models were utilized to examine demographic, socio-economic, and reproductive history characteristics in relation to women's choice of tubal ligation. Regression analyses were repeated with participants grouped by age to determine how the timing of availability of tubal ligation related to the decision to undergo the procedure. The results of this study suggest that younger age, more education, use of some forms of birth control, and increased parity were associated with women's decisions to undergo tubal ligation. The statistically significant difference of greater tubal ligation and lower hysterectomy rates across age groups reflect increased access to tubal ligation in Mexico from the early 1970s, supporting the idea that women's choice of tubal ligation was related to access.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".