MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416091260 · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-58802-2_558

Fertility in Developed Countries

2008· book-chapter· en· W4416091260 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alı́cia Adserà

Bibliographic record

VenueThe New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilitySub-replacement fertilityTotal fertility rateBirth rateDeveloped countryFellDeveloping country

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fertility rates in the developed world started to decline sharply at the end of the 19th century. In Europe fertility declined by about 40 per cent between 1870 and 1930, and the majority of Western countries experienced this transition before the Second World War (Lee, 2003). The Second World War was followed by a period of increases in fertility. After peaking during the ‘baby boom’ years of the late 1950s, the average total fertility rate in developed countries fell from an average of 2.8 births per woman in 1960 to 2.0 in 1975 and then to 1.6 in the late 1990s (and below 1.3 in southern Europe). The total fertility rate (TFR) estimates the number of children a woman would bear if she went through her childbearing years exposed to the current age-specific birth rates for women between the ages of 15–44 years. Table 1 presents the evolution of the total fertility rate since 1965 to 2004 in the most developed economies. In 1965, fertility rates were almost three children in many of these countries and even higher in Canada, Portugal, Iceland and Ireland. During the next decade, rates fell sharply in the richest countries, but they remained above replacement level in southern Europe, Ireland and Iceland.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe New Palgrave Dictionary of EconomicsSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207