MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299663982 · doi:10.18356/818a4790-en

Viet Nam’s older population: The view from the census

2002· article· en· W2299663982 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Knodel, Truong Si Anh

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia-Pacific population journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife expectancyFertilityTotal fertility rateDemographySub-replacement fertilityQuarter (Canadian coin)Projections of population growthCensusVietnamesePopulationBirth rateViet namGeographyPopulation growthPopulation momentumPopulation ageingDemographic transitionFamily planningEconomicsResearch methodologySociologyEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Viet Nam, as many other countries in East and South-East Asia, has been successful in its policy to lower fertility in the interest of national development. According to United Nations estimates, the total fertility rate fell from over six, just three decades ago, to close to the replacement level by the turn of the twenty-first century. Life expectancy at birth increased during the same time by almost 20 years to close to 70 (United Nations, 2001a). Past high fertility, combined with mortality decline, is resulting in substantial growth in the numbers of the older persons and, in conjunction with the subsequent fertility decline, to an increasing share of the overall population who are at older ages. Recent United Nations projections indicate that the population aged 60 and over will increase by 80 per cent in size in the first two decades of this new century and grow fivefold by mid-century (United Nations, 2001b). By 2050, persons aged 60 and over will constitute almost a quarter of the total Vietnamese population.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations19
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia-Pacific population journalSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207