MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604293933 · doi:10.5430/ijh.v3n1p76

Between a rock and a hard place: The reasons why women delay childbearing

2017· article· en· W2604293933 on OpenAlexaffabout
Judith C. Daniluk, Emily Koert

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Healthcare · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySalientDevelopmental psychologyCriticismSocial psychologyDemographyPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing trend for women to delay childbearing is often met with harsh criticism and judgment, based on the assumption that women are prioritizing their careers over having children. An on-line survey of 500 currently childless Canadian women between the ages of 18 and 38 (M = 28) assessed participants’ childbearing intentions and beliefs, and the factors they felt were most important in the timing of childbearing. Although the respondents felt women should ideally have their first child in their late 20s, most expected that they would begin their families in their 30s. The ability to financially support a child was the most strongly endorsed factor in the timing of childbearing, followed by good health, being with a partner who would be an involved and loving parent, and having a proper home in which to raise a child. These findings highlight the values and beliefs that were most salient in participants’ decisions about the timing of childbearing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of HealthcareSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207