MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1694123354 · doi:10.12927/whp.2014.23860

The Experiences of Making Infant Feeding Choices by African, Caribbean and Black HIV-Positive Mothers in Ontario, Canada

2014· article· en· W1694123354 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lydia Kapiriri, Wangari Tharao, Marvelous Muchenje, Khatundi Masinde, Sandi Siegel, Fanta Ongoïba

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld health & population · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreCanadian Partnership Against CancerHamilton Health SciencesWomen's Health In Women's HandsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Developing countryMedicineInfant feedingPublic healthEnvironmental healthDeveloped countryBreastfeedingPopulationPediatricsEconomic growthFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Mothers in HIV-endemic countries are advised to exclusively breastfeed their babies until six months because of lack of resources and better chances for child survival, while in developed countries, replacement feeding is advised. What are the experiences of HIV-positive women who migrate from HIV-endemic countries to developed countries, when making infant feeding choices? METHODS: In-depth interviews and focus group discussions with a total of 25 women living with HIV in Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario. RESULTS: Free infant formula alleviates the practical constraints in making infant feeding choices. However, cultural beliefs and social expectations constrain HIV-positive mothers' decision not to breastfeed. This is further complicated by the different policies. Service providers should understand the psychological and emotional experiences of the mothers in order to provide the appropriate support. Peers could be potential sources of support. The differences in policies are issues of global justice that need to be addressed.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld health & populationSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207