MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164693924 · doi:10.1177/0192513x04272756

Adult Couples Facing a Planned or an Unplanned Pregnancy

2005· article· en· W2164693924 on OpenAlexaff
Geneviève Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPregnancyNeuroticismConscientiousnessAgreeablenessPsychosocialMarital statusPersonalityDevelopmental psychologyBig Five personality traitsClinical psychologyDemographyPopulationPsychiatryExtraversion and introversionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined demographic, individual, and relational factors that differentiate adult couples facing an unplanned pregnancy carried to term from those facing a planned pregnancy. One hundred and eighteen couples expecting their first child completed, along with a demographic questionnaire, measures of personality, perceived stress, depression, attachment, and dyadic adjustment during the third trimester of the women’s pregnancy. Results showed that demographic risk factors for unplanned births included age, education level, annual income, length of relationship, and marital status. In addition, high levels of neuroticism, depression, and perceived stress, and low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness were individual factors associated with unplanned pregnancies among pregnant women. Relational factors associated with unplanned pregnancies included low levels of secure attachment and high levels of anxious-ambivalent and avoidant attachment in men and women. The findings clearly suggest that the psychosocial environment of couples with unplanned pregnancies is problematic.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.361
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations50
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseFrench-language works237,207