MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096490615

Early Childbearing in Nicaragua: A Continuing Challenge In Brief

2006· article· en· W7096490615 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Socioeconomic statusResidenceEducational attainmentFamily planningPopulationFertility
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

•Among Nicaraguan women 20–24 years old, six in 10 had entered a union and almost half had had a child before their 20th birthday. •A quarter of all births in Nicaragua—35,000 per year—are to 15–19-year-olds. •Rural women, who have less education, on average, than their urban counterparts, are more likely than city dwellers to enter a union and become mothers during adolescence. •The proportion of 20–24-year-olds who had a child during adolescence is more than twice as high among the poorest as among those in the highest socioeconomic category. •Nearly half—45%—of births to adolescent women are unplanned, a level that varies little by women’s urban-rural residence and their educational achievement. •Among all sexually active women aged 15–19 (in union and not in union), 86 % do not want a child in the next two years, and 36 % have an unmet need for effective contraception. Unmet need for family planning is equally high in urban and rural areas. •The strong link between low educational attainment and early motherhood suggests that improving educational opportunities for girls is a promising way of reducing high levels of adolescent childbearing in Nicaragua. Early Childbearing in Nicaragua: A Continuing Challenge

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Maternal and Child Health→French-language works237,207→