MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254876694 · doi:10.1136/jfprhc-2015-101254

Curbing family planning in Iran: an appraisal of Bill 446

2015· letter· en· W2254876694 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Erfani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityParliamentFamily planningTotal fertility rateMedicinePopulationBirth controlUnintended consequencesDemographyLawEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceResearch methodologyPoliticsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a policy response to the low fertility rate, Iran's Parliament proposed Bill 446, which bans surgical sterilisations used solely to limit births. The Bill's aim is to raise the country's low fertility rate that has fallen to 1.6 births per woman. 1 There is no doubt that Iran's population control policy needs to be revised to increase fertility levels, however recent data (Figure

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0510.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health CareSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207