MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914843786

MarriedAdolescentsandFamilyPlanninginRuralEthiopia: Understanding Barriers and Opportunities

2018· article· en· W2914843786 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Ketema, Annabel Erulkar

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Reproductive Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchDeveloping countryFamily planningChild marriagePopulationInvestment (military)PsychologyMedicineDemographySociologyEconomic growthEnvironmental healthResearch methodologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large numbers of girls in the developing world are married before age 18, an estimated 100 million girls in the next decade. It is assumed that newly married girls are under pressure to have children early in marriage. However, there is increasing evidence that married adolescent girls have significant levels of unmet need for family planning (FP). This qualitative study explores married girls‘ knowledge and demand for FP, as well as barriers and support. Qualitative data was obtained from girls who married as children in rural Ethiopia. Respondents demonstrated a high interest in FP, while the power dynamics within arranged marriages were the biggest factor influencing FP use. Disapproval of FP use was considerable among in-laws and community members; however, partner approval was the main determining factor in girls‘ FP use. Some service providers reportedly reinforced this dynamic; some girls reported that they requested confirmation of the husbands‘ approval of FP use. The findings suggest further investment in addressing social norms related to girls‘ status and voice. (Afr J Reprod Health 2018; 22[4]: 26-34).

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Reproductive HealthSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207