Breastfeeding as a Time-Varying–Time-Dependent Factor for Birth Spacing: Multivariate Models with Validations and Predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data used in the present study are from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-I) 1992-93 (International Institute for Population Sciences 1995), India. Our study has developed Cox model analyses to see the effect of breastfeeding as a time-varying and time-dependent factor on birth spacing. While it is acknowledged that breastfeeding has a protective effect on birth spacing, such analysis of breastfeeding allows for a more nuanced understanding of that effect. Multivariate analysis revealed that breastfeeding, ever experience of fetal loss, education of women, employment status of women, education of husband, media exposure, survival status of index child and place of residence played an important part in extending birth space in at least one of the birth-spacing intervals (first to fifth). However, the variables varied from the first birth spacing to the fifth birth spacing. Breastfeeding is the only covariate found to be a significant protective factor associated with each birth spacing. Furthermore, this study validates the developed models with their prediction utilities for birth spacing.
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 | 0.041 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".