MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Use of Withdrawal among Birth Limiters in Iran and Turkey

2012· article· en· W2155520004 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Erfani, İlknur Yüksel‐Kaptanoğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Family Planning · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographyLogistic regressionFamily planningMedicineDeveloping countryInfertilityPopulationPregnancyEnvironmental healthResearch methodologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite a decline infertility, an increase in contraceptive prevalence, and a wide expansion of family planning programs in Iran and Turkey, a large proportion of "birth limiters" rely on withdrawal to avoid pregnancy. Adopting a comparative approach, this study draws on data from the 2000 Iran DHS and 2003 Turkey DHS to examine the determinants of the practice of withdrawal among birth limiters. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were employed to estimate the likelihood of withdrawal use among two representative samples of birth limiters. Higher education and wealth were associated with greater likelihood of withdrawal use among birth limiters in Iran, while an inverse association was found in Turkey. Older age was positively associated with withdrawal in both countries, whereas having more than four children was inversely related to use. Study results suggest that family planning and reproductive health programs in Iran and Turkey should be aware of the groups that have high rates of withdrawal use, should educate couples in the effective use of withdrawal, and should encourage the use of more effective modern methods and emergency contraceptives when appropriate.

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)0.000
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations37
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Family PlanningSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207