MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606689213 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.38.1.71

Pregnancy Intention and Father Involvement in Guatemala

2007· article· en· W2606689213 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer Rogers, Ilene S. Speizer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnintended pregnancyPregnancyDemographyLogistic regressionPsychologyNational Survey of Family GrowthMedicineMultivariate analysisPopulationDevelopmental psychologyFamily planningResearch methodologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the association between pregnancy intention and father involvement in Guatemala. Father involvement is measured by whether the child lives with his/her father, whether a non-residential father provides financial support, and whether the child is registered with the non-residential father’s last name. Data are from separate surveys of women and men. Overall, a greater percentage of men reported that they live with their children and that their children were intended than the percentage of women who reported residential fathers and intended pregnancies. Multivariate logistic regression analyses, controlling for other variables, find that pregnancy intention is associated with father involvement. Both men and women reported that their child was more likely to be registered with the father’s name if that child was intended. Men also reported that they were significantly more likely to be involved in their children’s lives financially if those non- residential children were intended. Programs and policies that try to prevent unintended pregnancies or that try to involve the father in the pregnancy before the birth may result in an increase in father involvement and thus may have a significant impact on child well-being in Guatemala.

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)0.000
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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207