MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154273452 · doi:10.5539/ass.v10n2p189

Inter-Spousal Communication on Family Planning and Its Effect on Contraceptive Use and Method Choice in Bangladesh

2013· article· en· W2154273452 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Md. Shahidul Islam, Muhammad Shafiul Alam, Md. Mahedi Hasan

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinomial logistic regressionFamily planningLogistic regressionDemographyBivariate analysisPsychologyPopulationMedicineResearch methodologyStatisticsSociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inter-spousal communication is largely influenced to couples on contraceptive use and the decision of appropriate method choice. This paper examined the effects of inter-spousal communication on contraceptive use and method choice in Bangladesh. A total 451 married men aged 15-49 were interviewed from Narsingdi municipality, Bangladesh. Bivariate analysis as chi square test was applied to examine the relationship between spousal communication as well as other socio-demographic variables on contraceptive use. Binary logistic regression was applied to examine the effect of spousal communication on contraceptive use and multinomial logistic regression was applied to examine the effect of spousal communication on method choice. Binary logistic regression showed that inter spousal communication on family planning has strong positive effect on current contraceptive use and multinomial logistic regression showed that inter spousal communication has positive effect on choosing modern and tradition method than none using any method. However, age of husband, age of women, number of living children, media exposure, knowledge on contraception, husband and women occupation, and couple’s income were also associated with contraceptive use and method choice in Bangladesh.

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)0.004
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.385 · 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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207