MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200618789 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v11n1p54

Age at First Birth in Uttar Pradesh: How Much Has It Actually Changed? Over Inter-NFHS Period?

2021· article· en· W4200618789 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ajay Pandey, Richa Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityDemographyUttar pradeshMedicineTotal fertility ratePopulationFamily planningResearch methodologySocioeconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Culturally, there is always pressure among newly-wed to conceive early and have births in India. Previous studies have documented relationship between age at first birth & fertility, besides the socio-demographic factors that influence age at first birth. The current study aims answering directions and quantum of such relationships using frailty models. The successive rounds of NFHS data (1, 2, 3 & 4) from Uttar Pradesh is used in the study. Fertility in India is characterized as too-early-too-fast. By age-30 majority women would have completed the childbearing. However, the data from NFHS-4 shows some striking changes in the initiation of child bearing in Uttar Pradesh breaking away from the stereotypes of too early too fast characterization. While 44.67 percent of the women aged 30-34 had experienced first birth by age 18 in the year 1992-93 (NFHS-1), the percentages declined during 2015-16 (NFHS-4) to 28.25%. However, by ages 26 majority of women (>95%) aged 30-34 have had experienced first birth. Births at younger age are also a reflection on enforcement of child-marriage restraint act & adherence to legal minimum age at marriage which is 18 for girls & 21 for boys. The data from NFHS-4 have some quality issues. Women aged as low as 5 have shown to have experienced first birth by that age. This may not be possible. The Kaplan Meier survival Graph provided the survival probabilities with respect of each predictor sub groups. The log rank test was used to test the equality of survivor function for each sub group of the predictor variable. The survivor function was significantly different among sub groups of the predictor variables except for the categories of ever use of contraception at NFHS1 and categories of religion across rounds of NFHS data. The Cox Proportional Hazards model was used to study the risk of first birth by socio demographic characteristics. The Frailty model capturing the unobserved heterogeneity in the event time was preferred over standard survival model. For the current study, gamma frailty with Weibull-hazard is used as it fits the data well. Age at marriage and women’s literacy significantly determines the Age at First Birth. The inverse relationship with regard to ever use of contraception needs further analysis. The model also predicts significant frailty with variance parameter (theta) greater than one across the NFHS datasets.

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)0.004
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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability→Same topicGlobal Maternal and Child Health→French-language works237,207→