MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017743863 · doi:10.1080/00324720500462223

Reliability of reasons for early termination of breastfeeding: Application of a bivariate probability model with sample selection to data from surveys in Malaysia in 1976–77 and 1988–89

2006· article· en· W2017743863 on OpenAlexaff
Barthélémy Kuate Defo, Julie DaVanzo

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulation Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBivariate analysisReliability (semiconductor)BreastfeedingConsistency (knowledge bases)Sample (material)RecallPsychologySelection (genetic algorithm)DemographyMedicineStatisticsPediatricsComputer scienceMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although extensively collected, data on people's reasons for their behaviour provided retrospectively have been met with some scepticism on the grounds that they may be subject to biases and errors that jeopardize their usefulness. This study investigates, for a sample of 1,327 births, the reliability with which women in Peninsular Malaysia recalled, at intervals 12 years apart, reasons for not initiating or for stopping breastfeeding less than 3 months after a birth. Overall, we find low to moderate reliability of recall. Levels of reliability are relatively high for some reasons (the child died and no or insufficient milk) but low for some others (child ill, breastfeeding inconvenient). Results from selection models show that reliability does not vary with the length of time since the child's birth but is inversely related to socio-economic status (proxied by education and employment). Social status, social norms, and health-related factors appear to be significant influences on women's consistency of reporting.

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)0.082
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.185
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0820.185
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePopulation StudiesSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207