MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800821653 · doi:10.1111/jomf.12483

Fertility Behavior of Interracial Couples

2018· article· en· W2800821653 on OpenAlexaff
Kate H. Choi, Rachel Goldberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marriage and the Family · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational Survey of Family GrowthPregnancyFertilitySocioeconomic statusUnintended pregnancyDemographyEthnic groupWifeRace (biology)PsychologyWhite (mutation)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychologyFamily planningGender studiesPopulationSociologyPolitical scienceResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the unprecedented rise in the number of intermarriages and multiracial individuals in recent decades, our understanding about the fertility behavior of interracial couples is limited. Using data from the 2002 and 2006–2015 National Survey of Family Growth, this study compares the risk of pregnancy and the pregnancy intentions of interracial couples with those of same‐race couples. Interracial couples' risk of pregnancy differed little from that of same‐race White couples, with the exception of White wife–Black husband couples, whose risk of pregnancy was higher than both same‐race White and Black couples. Neither socioeconomic disparities nor union characteristics explained their elevated pregnancy risk. Interracial couples' risk of unintended pregnancy mirrored closely that of same‐race couples from the husband's racial or ethnic group. Socioeconomic disparity was the primary driver of differences in pregnancy intentions between interracial and same‐race White couples.

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)0.002
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 score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marriage and the FamilySame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207