MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3148947956 · doi:10.5539/res.v13n2p1

Fertility Decrease and Son Preference Among the Educated Middle-Class in Kathmandu

2021· article· en· W3148947956 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bishnu Prasad Dahal

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityPreferencePopulationAbortionSocial classDemographyPoliticsSociologyGender studiesPsychologySocioeconomicsDemographic economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this research article is to explore the persistence of single child especially the son preference in a Hindu dominated patrilineal, patrilocal society found in Kathmandu is facing the midst of fertility decline. Using semi-structured interview schedule with the help of observation and ethnographic field work mostly in middle class families of Kathmandu, I have tried to analyze the role of socio-cultural factors in selecting the number of baby conceiving and give birth, gender of child etc. regarding reproductive health and concern were questioned to married women and which remained intact. Fertility decrease or increase is not due to the only the demographic factors, it is due to the multiple factors; social factors, cultural, ecological, economic, religious and psychological, political etc. that’s why, due to various reasons fertility is decreasing day by day in one hand and in other hand son preference is increasing day by day. People usually working couple do not want more than single child and they want to give birth a single son. It impacts on population composition, sex ration, increase abortion, familial quarrel etc. Son preference is because of multiple reasons; economic, religious, cultural, social, political familial, lineage system, customs, norms values, attitudes etc.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207