MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292884067 · doi:10.18063/ijps.v7i1.1318

Family size preferences among women in a union in Nigeria and associated factors

2022· article· en· W4292884067 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lorretta Ntoimo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Population Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityDemographyWifePopulationQuarter (Canadian coin)Total fertility rateMultinomial logistic regressionFamily planningLogistic regressionGeographySocioeconomicsMedicineEconomicsSociologyMathematicsResearch methodologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

 Nigeria’s population is currently estimated at 216million and the country will be the third most populous in the world in 2050. A major driver of the high population growth is persistent high fertility. This study examined women’s fertility preferences, which was measured with ideal family size (IFS) and the associated factors. Data were obtained from the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey. The analysis consisted of a weighted sample of 13, 673 women in union, aged 15–49 years whose first marriage took place within 10 years before the survey. Descriptive and multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted. The proportion of respondents whose IFS was 5+ was 65%. Slightly above one-quarter had IFS of four children, and 11% had IFS of 0 – 3. IFS of 5+ was significantly associated with women resident in the Northern and Southeast regions, rural residents, Muslims, women who had no education, women working in agriculture, sales/service jobs, those who participated in one or two out of four household decisions, justified wife beating, have 5+ siblings, experienced child death, and married before age 20. Efforts to achieve the target reduction in total fertility rate in Nigeria should be multi-sectoral targeting these subpopulations of women.  

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Population StudiesSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207