MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1906924941

[Maternal beliefs, feeding practices and nutritional status in Afro-Colombian infants].

2005· article· en· W1906924941 on OpenAlexaff
Beatriz Alvarado, Rosa Elizabeth Tabares, Hélène Delisle, Marı́a Victoria Zunzunegui

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineBreast feedingPsychological interventionWastingWeaningSocioeconomic statusEnvironmental healthDemographyPediatricsPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study describes maternal practices and beliefs on children feeding and their relationship with nutritional status of Afro-Colombian children aged 6 to 18 months. We combined ethnographic and epidemiological data. We collected information using a food frequency questionnaire. Nine focus groups and 5 deep interviews to mothers of children less than 2 years of age were performed. Our data showed a prevalence of wasting of 2.6% (< -2 SD weight-for-length) and prevalence of stunting of 9.8% (< -2 SD height-for-age). These practices are characterized by a universal onset of breastfeeding, that lasted 10 months in average, and an early introduction of complementary food (mean: 3 months). Breastfeeding is a cultural norm. Weaning is related to new pregnancy, to low milk production and to negative effects of breast process on mothers' health. Early complementary feeding and bottle-feeding are highly valued due to their positive effect on nutritional status and adaptation of children to adult-type diets. The introduction of complementary food after 4 months, the quality of the first food introduced and the diversity of complementary food predicted better nutritional status (p < 0.05). We conclude that nutritional illiteracy and mothers' erroneous beliefs result in 50% of the mothers having inadequate feeding practices. We suggest focused interventions on those beliefs limiting good practices.

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)0.001
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 score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207