Comparison of Infant Vitamin D Supplement Use Among Canadian-Born, Immigrant, and Refugee Mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study compares knowledge and practice of infant vitamin D supplementation among immigrant, refugee, and Canadian-born mothers. METHOD: Focus group discussions with 94 mothers of children aged 0 to 3 years recruited from early childhood centers and a refugee health clinic. FINDINGS: Both immigrant and Canadian-born mothers indicated good knowledge and use of infant vitamin D supplementation. In contrast, Canadian government-assisted refugees were less likely to supplement with vitamin D. The main source of information about vitamin D was public health prenatal classes. Many mothers reported inconsistent guidance from health care providers. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Exclusively breastfed infants of refugees may be more at risk of vitamin D deficiency. All mothers require clear recommendations, both in clinical and public health settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Mothers, both new Canadian and Canadian-born, require clear and consistent messaging from health professionals. Refugee mothers, however, require more educational support to promote infant vitamin D supplementation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".