MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141194747 · doi:10.3109/13625187.2011.580400

Selection and use of contraceptive methods among internal migrant workers in three large Chinese cities: A workplace-based survey

2011· article· en· W2141194747 on OpenAlexaff
Hongxin Zhao, Junqing Wu, Yuyan Li, Yufeng Zhang, Jiang‐Feng Ye, Shaokang Zhan, Xiaoying Zheng, Tingzhong Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBeijingFamily planningPopulationMigrant workersMarital statusDemographyEnvironmental healthResearch methodologyChinaEconomic growthGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To describe the current status of the decision-making process with regard to the use of contraceptive methods among internal migrant workers in three large Chinese cities. METHODS: A total of 4313 sexually active internal migrant workers were recruited in Beijing, Shanghai, and Chengdu. Information on contraceptive use was collected by means of questionnaires. RESULTS: Contraceptive prevalence was 86% among unmarried sexually active migrant workers and 91% among married workers. The main contraceptive methods used by married migrants were the intrauterine device (51%), condoms (25%) and female/male sterilisation (17%); the main methods resorted to by unmarried, sexually active migrants were condoms (74%) and oral contraceptives (11%). The contraceptive method applied by 20% of married respondents had been selected by other people, without they themselves having their share in an informed choice. Adopting the contraceptive decisions made by others was associated with being a married migrant, a construction or service worker, a rural-urban migrant, a migrant living in collective or rented rooms, or a migrant with more children. CONCLUSIONS: Many internal migrants in these large cities did not choose their contraceptive method on their own. Efforts enabling and encouraging migrants to make informed choices are needed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health CareSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207