MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889907354 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v10n10p65

The Prevalence and Determinants of Unintended Pregnancies Among Women in Abakaliki, Southeast Nigeria

2018· article· en· W2889907354 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lucky Osaheni Lawani, Napoleon N. Ekem, JN Eze, K. C. Ekwedigwe, John Okafor Egede, M. E. Isikhuemen

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnintended pregnancyResidencePregnancyMedicineReproductive healthDemographyPublic healthCross-sectional studyEnvironmental healthFamily medicinePopulationFamily planningNursingResearch methodologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Unintended pregnancy is a major social and public health problem affecting women within the reproductive age group. It jeopardizes women’s sexual and reproductive health and may pose a threat to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 3. Objective: To determine the prevalence and determinants of unintended pregnancy in Abakaliki, Southeast Nigeria. METHODS: A semi-structured questionnaire was used for a cross-sectional survey of antenatal clinic attendees at the Federal Teaching Hospital, Abakaliki from January 2015 to March 2015. A total of 185 questionnaires were correctly filled and analyzed using 2008 Epi Info version statistical software (Atlanta Georgia, USA). RESULTS: Out of the 185 antenatal clinic attendees, 43.8% (81/185) reported having had an unintended pregnancy at some point in their lives. The age at marriage, level of education, place of residence, sex education and use of contraception were significant determinants of unintended pregnancy. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of unintended pregnancy in this study was high. Its determinants include educational status, use of contraception, age at marriage and place of residence.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207