Are traditional honour ideologies associated with fertility goals and contraceptive use? Findings from a cross-sectional study with a national sample of women and men in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used data from a nationally representative sample of men and women of childbearing age in Uganda to assess the association between traditional honour ideologies and fertility goals and contraception use. We used multivariable regression analysis to assess the associations between honour ideologies and a) the ideal number of children, b) male control over contraceptive decision-making, and c) male/female-controlled contraceptive use. Results show that men desired more children and were less likely to use contraception compared to women. For men, honour ideologies about women are linked to both larger desired family size and lower likelihood to use male-controlled contraceptives. Additionally, men's honour ideologies for both genders were associated with a higher likelihood of male control over contraceptive decision-making. We conclude that traditional honour norms not only lead to a preference for more children but also entail male control over contraceptive decisions, undermining women's contraceptive use autonomy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".