MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1832314163 · doi:10.1080/07409710.2015.1066223

Exploring Infant Feeding Pratices In Food Insecure Households: What Is The Real Issue?

2015· article· en· W1832314163 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lesley Frank

Bibliographic record

VenueFood and Foodways · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood insecurityFood securityBreastfeedingConsumption (sociology)FoodwaysEnvironmental healthInfant feedingBusinessPsychologyEconomicsSociologyGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents results from a sociological exploratory case study on the relationship between infant feeding practice and household food insecurity in Canada. Drawing on interviews with 20 mothers living in low-income circumstances in Nova Scotia, this article discusses how the particular foodways of the mother-infant dyad—those that relate to food production through lactation, feeding method, food acquisition, and food consumption—are shaped by the social condition of household food insecurity. The findings demonstrate that household food insecurity led mothers to initiate breastfeeding, however severe levels of household food insecurity also compromised maternal food consumption and breastfeeding success. The findings also detail how infant food insecurity resulted from non-affordability and inaccessibility of formula. For infant food security to occur, mothers must be supported to be producers of food and supported in accessing reliable, safe, affordable, personally acceptable alternatives through socially just means when breastfeeding is not possible. Doing so will require adopting a mother-centered harm reduction approach to infant feeding support, along with broader policy considerations aimed at improving economic and social welfare.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.483
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.060 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations43
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood and FoodwaysSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207