MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399125681 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.190520

Adolescent Polygamists' Sociodemographic Characteristics in Musi Banyuasin: A Spatial Distribution-Based Study

2024· article· en· W4399125681 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nina Damayati, Mirna Taufik, Giyanto Giyanto

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthEnvironmental scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aims of this study were to examine the features of teenagers involved in polygamy partnerships in the chosen case study area, using socio-demographic relationships.The types research is descriptive and quantitative.This research method uses a survey approach to obtain data from a collection of panels or respondents.Purposive sampling strategies were applied.The total sample of 48 respondents consists of 16 homes, each with 16 husbands, 16 first wives, and 16 second wives.The analysis technique is descriptive, utilizing percentage calculations.The results of this study found that female teenage polygamy was discovered in 14 villages, with Mekar Jaya and Kertaju having the highest concentrations.44% of the teen polygamy population was 17 years or younger.Based on their work activity, 73% of polygamous teens were found to be unemployed.Women who do not work are more likely to be open to polygamous relationships.The bulk of polygamous women are from villages outside the subregion.The dispersion of their original villages influences the socio-spatial and socio-demographic characteristics of young polygamists.The prevalence of polygamy marriage among young people can be attributed to teenagers' lack of knowledge of the obligations associated with marriage, namely the tasks demanded of a husband.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207