Infant Death Clustering in the Quarter of a Century in India: A Decomposition Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims to examine the clustering of infant deaths in India and the relative contribution of infant death clustering after accounting for the socio-economic and biodemographic factors that explain the decline in infant deaths. The study utilized 10 years of birth history data from three rounds of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS). The random effects dynamic probit model was used to decompose the decline in infant deaths into the contributions by the socio-economic and demographic factors, including the lagged independent variable, the previous infant death measuring the clustering of infant deaths in families. The study found that there has been a decline in the clustering of infant deaths among families during the past two and half decades. The simulation result shows that if the clustering of infant deaths in families in India was completely removed, there would be a decline of nearly 30 percent in the infant mortality rate (IMR). A decomposition analysis based on the dynamic probit model shows that for NFHS-1 and NFHS-3, in the total change of the probability of infant deaths, the rate of change for a given population composition contributed around 45 percent, and about 44 percent was explained by a compositional shift. Between NFHS-3 and NFHS-4, the rate of change for a given population composition contributed 86%, and the population composition for a given rate contributed 10% to the total change in the probability of infant deaths. Within this rate, the contribution of a previous infant was 0.8% and the mother’s age was 10%; nearly 31% was contributed by the region of residence, 69% by the mother’s education, and around 20% was contributed by the wealth index and around 8.7% by the sex of the child. The mother’s unobserved factors contributed more than 50 percent to the variability of infant deaths in all the survey rounds and was also statistically significant (p < 0.01). Bivariate analysis suggests that women with two or more infant losses were much less likely to have full immunization (10%) than women with no infant loss (62%), although institutional delivery was high among both groups 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".