Fertility transition in Tanzania : the impact of marriage and contraception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis aims to evaluate the impact of these two factors on the Tanzanian fertility decline, using mainly the 1996 Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey. Age at first marriage is rising in Tanzania. However, it will only lead to a decline in fertility to the extent that it is not offset by premarital fertility, which is high. To analyse the impact of marriage on fertility, the total fertility is decomposed in its pre- and post-marital parts and a method based on standardisation used. It is estimated that in the twenty years before the survey at least a quarter of the fertility decline among women aged 15-34 is due to a rise in age at marriage. Other countries of eastern and southern Africa are then analysed to include Tanzania in a wider context. Contraceptive prevalence rates are rising in Tanzania. However, contraception is used mainly to space births rather than to stop childbearing. Therefore, the impact of contraception is not as straightforward as in other parts of the world than sub-Saharan Africa. The proportions of women using contraception in each birth interval and the lengths of the intervals for women spacing and for women not using contraception are estimated using survival analysis. Then, simulation models of women’s reproductive life are designed. The mean number of children ever born (CEB) is estimated at 5.71, close to the most recent total fertility rate. It is shown that spacing as practised currently in Tanzania, even if very prevalent, has little impact on the fertility rates whereas stopping, fairly uncommon, has a large impact. Projections are then made to evaluate the most efficient family planning strategies in order to reduce fertility in Tanzania: more and longer spacing or more stopping. This thesis has not found any evidence that Tanzania is following a new type of fertility transition led by spacing. In fact, the way marriage and contraception affect fertility leads us to conclude that the fertility transition in Tanzania is following the path drawn by Europe, Asia and Latin America. However, this would change if more women were to space for longer.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".