MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005506226 · doi:10.14738/assrj.71.7673

Women's Education: An Important Tool for Birth Reduction? A GMM - Poisson Regression Model Approach

2020· article· en· W3005506226 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Yedan

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Social Sciences Research Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoisson regressionFertilityTotal fertility rateDemographyBirth rateQuarter (Canadian coin)Primary educationGeographyFamily planningPopulationEconomicsSociologyEconomic growthResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burkina Faso is a country with a shallow level of woman’s education. However, it is one of the most fertile countries. This paper analyzes whether the education of women reduces the number of births and the Total Fertility Rate in Burkina Faso. It also predicts the average number of births per woman and the Total Fertility Rate if women were better educated. Using data from the Demographic and Health Surveys, I model the two-stage Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) with the Heckman model and Poisson regression. The results show that the high fertility in Burkina Faso is mainly due to the low level of the woman’s education. The post-primary education increases the age at first birth. The number of births per woman would be decreased in the quarter and the Total Fertility Rate would pass from 5.4 to 3.6 if all women had at least completed the primary school. If all women had at least an incomplete secondary school, the number of births per woman would halve and the Total Fertility Rate would become 2.0. The government would do better to improve the education system allowing a good education for all, especially for women if it intends to reduce fertility.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Social Sciences Research JournalSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207