MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7011457520

Low Fertility and Contraceptive Sterilization: The Canadian Case

2010· article· en· W7011457520 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMemory, History, Trauma, Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityFamily planningSterilization (economics)PopulationDeveloped countryTotal fertility rate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents fertility variations among the Canadian regions and analyses the paths leading to the choice of contraceptive sterilization. Based on data from the 2001 General Social Survey, the research shows that while every region has adopted a low fertility regime, substantial differences are observed among women aged 40-49 in 2001: Quebec couples had fewer children; among those in stable unions, Quebec couples were also more likely to choose contraceptive sterilization, while this was not the case among those couples where at least one of the spouses was in a second union; moreover, couples in such unions were less likely to have a common child in Québec than in other regions. In the end, if regional differences in the choice of sterilization persist, they are not large, and this choice is driven by fertility decisions everywhere.

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.000

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.247 · 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