Factors Influencing the Initiation and Duration of Breastfeeding Among Low-Income Women Followed by the Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program in 4 Regions of Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The factors that influence the actual initiation and duration of breastfeeding were studied among low-income women followed by the Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program (CPNP). A group of 196 pregnant women were selected at random from a sample of 6223 pregnant women who registered with the CPNP. Two 24-hour recalls and information regarding lifestyle habits, peer support, and infant-feeding practices were obtained between 26 and 34 weeks of gestation and 21 days and 6 months after birth. Women who received a university education (completed or not completed) versus women with < or = high school education (odds ratio [OR], 8.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-69.50), women born outside Canada (OR,8.81; 95% CI, 3.34-23.19), and women of low birth weight infants (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.96) were more likely to initiate breastfeeding. Late introduction of solid foods (P = .004), nonsmoking (P = .005), multiparity (P = .012), and a higher level of education (P = .049) were positively associated with the duration of breastfeeding among initiators. Understanding factors associated with initiation and duration of breastfeeding among low-income women is critical to better target breastfeeding promotion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".