Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a qualitative study, that if supported in the culture to understand the phenomenon of breast-feeding.It has for objective the understanding of the cultural aspects on breastfeeding, in the vision of a group of women, identifying its meanings and analyzing as the same ones if they reveal in the practical one.The study it was become fulfilled in a quarter of the city of Porto Nacional, Tocantins, and had as citizens five mothers who were with its babies in the band of one to six months.The data had been collected through halfstructuralized interview and of the comment, a daily one of field was constructed that assisted in the interpretation of the data.After to transcribe the interviews, we use what Bogdan & Biklen (1994) call of categories of codification, or either, phrases or words that give a notion of the direction concerning the information contained in the empirical data.The main codes that had emerged from the analysis had been three: unreliability and guilt, feeding: scientific Knowing and popular knowing, the well-taken care of one for the family and the professional.Breast-feeding showed a particular experience only e for each woman, and involved different meanings at different moments of breast-feeding.Thus, all experience has value and deserves credit, in not fitting the judgments of any nature.Relative aspects the negative and ackward moments lived deeply by the women during breast-feeding had been salient for them in its speak, beyond a valuation of popular knowing many times in detriment of the scientific one; evidencing a different vision of that it comes if proclaiming in the speeches in favor of breast-feeding.While professional health, we need re-to learn to hear our women and to understand that its logical one is based not only on its experiences, as also in the practical understandings and that community where is inserted has regarding a subject.Perhaps thus, let us be capable to contribute for the success of this process.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".