MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964914499 · doi:10.1111/cars.12255

Family Welfare Effort, Total Fertility, and In Vitro Fertilization: Explaining the Israeli Anomaly

2019· review· en· W2964914499 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Shenhav‐Goldberg, Robert J. Brym, Talia Lenton‐Brym

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityWelfarePopulationSocioeconomic statusWelfare stateTotal fertility rateHarmony (color)EconomicsDemographic economicsSociologyDemographyPolitical scienceFamily planningLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The theory of family welfare effort is a leading macro-sociological explanation of variation in human fertility. It holds that states which provide universally available, inexpensive, high-quality day care, generous parental leave, and flexible work schedules lower the opportunity cost of motherhood. They thus enable women, especially those in lower socioeconomic strata, to have the number of babies they want. A considerable body of research supports this theory. However, it is based almost exclusively on analyses of Western European and North American countries. This paper examines the Israeli case because Israel's total fertility rate is anomalously high given its family welfare effort. Based on a review of the relevant literature and a reanalysis of data from various published sources, it explains the country's unusually high total fertility rate as the product of (1) religious and nationalistic sentiment that is heightened by the Jewish population's perception of a demographic threat in the form of a burgeoning Palestinian population and (2) the state's resulting support for pro-natal policies, including the world's most extensive in vitro fertilization (IVF) system. The paper also suggests that Israel's IVF policy may not be in harmony with the interests of many women insofar as even women with an extremely low likelihood of becoming pregnant are encouraged to undergo the often lengthy, emotionally and physically painful, and risky process of IVF.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologieSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207