MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613854946 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.45.3.331

Family Size Preferences and Decision Making Process in Odisha, India

2014· article· en· W2613854946 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Harihar Sahoo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgrarian societyCastePovertyStandard of livingFertilityValue (mathematics)Government (linguistics)Argument (complex analysis)SocioeconomicsSocioeconomic statusPopulationDemographic economicsEconomic growthEconomicsSociologyGeographyDemographyPolitical scienceAgricultureMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decision on the number of children is taken within the household decision making framework. One argument states that, the rising costs and declining economic value of children drives couples to go for smaller families. The other major economic argument states that, it is in parent’s best interest to have large number of children in any agrarian or poor economic setting, where children can be put to work to contribute to the household income. Therefore, in this study an attempt has been made to capture the economic effects in a poor state of India i.e. Odisha, where sustained fertility decline has occurred in spite of unfavourable conditions. Data for the study are drawn from National Family Health Survey and also from a primary survey carried in one district of Odisha. The result demonstrated that the desire to stop child bearing increases rapidly with the number of living children. Multiple classification analysis shows that caste, educational level, standard of living of the household, exposure to mass media and number of living son are important determinants of desire family size. It is also evident that in spite of widespread poverty in the state the economic provision of the government is not a precondition for the decision of number of children. The result show that the thresholds have fallen because of the changing value of children; cost of raising them has increased and child participation in work force has decreased. Such changes have occurred because of diffusion of ideas.

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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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