MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407899261 · doi:10.1080/19485565.2025.2465547

Identifying the effects of large catastrophic shocks on the distribution of births using a combination of Benford’s law and the Vector Error Correction Model(VECM)

2025· article· en· W4407899261 on OpenAlexaff
Bogdan Vasile Ileanu

Bibliographic record

VenueBiodemography and Social Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicBenford’s Law and Fraud Detection
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health Outcomes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenford's lawEconometricsStatisticsError correction modelDistribution (mathematics)MathematicsLawCointegrationMathematical analysisPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the case of Romanian births, jointly distributed by age groups of mother and father, covering the period 1958-2022, under the potential influence of significant disruptors. Demographic shocks like armed conflicts, epidemics, floods, or slave trade are already present in the literature. Therefore, our study searches for the effects of World War II, the 1966 Anti-abortion Decree and COVID-19 shocks on birth distribution. Other legislative and political changes are not marginalized. Applying First Digit Law of Benford we search for anomalies in birth data. Then, following a vector-autoregressive method, we search for a long-term relation between fertility rate and anomaly in birth distribution. We also try to link disruptors and their potential effects as well. We found a statistically significant long term relation between fertility rate and birth distribution by age of parents. We confirm World War II as a major shock, and our results suggest adding the 1966 Anti-abortion Decree to the list of catastrophic events. The current work also reveals a time lag of 15 years between shock and its effects and a persistence of 15 to 20 years. COVID-19 does not impact (yet) the birth distribution by age of parents.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiodemography and Social BiologySame topicBenford’s Law and Fraud DetectionFrench-language works237,207