MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981946271 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2019.00300

Investigating Male Presence at Antenatal and Choice of Place for Child Delivery in Ghana

2019· article· en· W2981946271 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Phidelia Theresa Doegah

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsResidenceChildbirthLogistic regressionMedicineDemographyMarital statusEthnic groupPregnancyPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Male involvement in maternal health was introduced to improve and sustain maternal and child health in Ghana. The study utilized the 2014 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey data to investigate the relationship between male presence at antenatal and choice of place of childbirth among 1,167 males, 15-59 years. Descriptive and analytical statistical techniques were applied to the data. The binary logistic regression shows no association between male presence at antenatal and place of delivery (OR = 1.197; 95% CI = 0.808-1.773). However, age (OR = 2.647; 95% CI = 1.221-5.736, OR = 3.046; 95% CI = 1.345-6.896, OR = 3.513; 95% CI = 1.478-8.345), level of education (OR = 4.478; 95% CI = 1.412-14.1990, religion (OR = 0.473; 95% CI = 0.237-0.946), ethnicity (OR = 0.400; 95% CI = 0.182-0.877, OR = 0.425; 95% CI 0.194-0.935), marital status (OR = 5.682; 95% CI = 2.093-15.421, OR = 5.669; 95% CI = 1.448-22.198), place of residence (OR = 7.272; 95% CI = 4.231-12.499), and region of residence (OR = 11.515; 95% CI = 2.785-47.618) of males were found associated with health facility based delivery. Regarding policy to promote institutional delivery among women, these socio-demographic factors identified should be considered.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207