INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR IN BOTSWANA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate intergenerational transmission of reproductive behaviour in Botswana. The major source of data was the 2001 Botswana AIDS Impact Survey where a nationally representative random sample of men and women aged 10-64 years was selected using a stratified two-stage probability sample design. Covariates in the analysis include age, education, marital status, religion, age at first birth, residence, duration at residence and contraceptive use. The main analytical technique is linear regression. The results indicate that the reproductive behaviour of older generations has a significantly positive influence on the reproductive behaviour of the subsequent generation, but does not affect the subsequent generation homogeneously. The effect appeared much stronger for women who initiated childbearing at an older age, for women who had never been to school, and for the cohort aged 50-59 years. These findings suggest that number of siblings, as a reproductive behaviour determinant, may very well have confounded previous reproductive behaviour analyses in Botswana. The study draws attention to the importance of the effect of origin family size in determining reproductive behaviour outcomes in Botswana.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".