Knowledge of Emergency Contraception among Reproductive Age Group of Married Women in Field Practicing Area of RMCH, Bareilly -
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Only a few know about ECP as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy after unprotected intercourse and even among those who are aware of ECP very few know how to use it correctly. Methodology: A cross-sectional community based study amongst married women aged 15-45 years present in their respective house- holds. A structured pretested interviewer-administered schedule was used to collect data. Chi- square test and ANOVA were used to analyze data Results: Nearly a quarter of females had knowledge about EC. EC awareness was significantly lower among rural females (9.3%) than the urban (17.3%) females. Respondents who were aware of EC first heard about EC from television (68.6%). Majority of those aware knew about the pills (91.2%). In addition, most participants (84.5%, n = 515) did not know about the appropriate interval for efficacy between unprotected sex and taking EC. Only 5.0 % respondents had ever used an emergency contraception method. Nearly a quar- ter of respondents would like to use EC in future. Education of woman and husband were found to be significant Conclusion: Education was found to be significant predictor of knowledge of emergency contraception in this study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".