MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005621308 · doi:10.1177/0890334404266969

Factors Influencing the Breastfeeding Decisions of Long-term Breastfeeders

2004· article· en· W2005621308 on OpenAlexaff
Lynn A. Rempel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Lactation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingBreastfeeding promotionMedicineDuration (music)Psychological interventionHumWeaningPromotion (chess)Theory of planned behaviorTerm (time)Breast feedingPsychologyPediatricsFamily medicineNursingControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding determinants of mothers' decisions regarding long-term breastfeeding is important for the promotion of breastfeeding for up to 12 months postpartum and beyond. In this longitudinal infant feeding study, the theory of planned behavior was used to explain the intended and actual breastfeeding duration of 80 participants who were breastfeeding 9-month-old infants. Participants perceived less approval for breastfeeding the longer they breastfed. Perceived approval did not explain prenatal intended duration but strongly explained intended duration at 9 months postpartum. The amount of control mothers perceived they had over breastfeeding, however, explained both prenatal and 9-month breastfeeding duration intentions. Reasons for weaning between 9 and 12 months reflected the effects of perceived control but not of perceived approval. These results suggest the need for (1) interventions to increase the social acceptability of long-term breastfeeding and (2) ongoing breastfeeding guidance and support for long-term breastfeeders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations114
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Human LactationSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207