Breastfeeding Status on US Birth Certificates: Where Do We Go From Here?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to assess the extent to which states collected breastfeeding data on the birth certificate, to verify the wording of the breastfeeding questions used, and to develop recommendations for future revisions of the breastfeeding question asked on the US Standard Certificate of Live Birth. METHODS: Registrars of vital statistics in US states and territories were contacted via telephone with e-mail follow-up between April 2006 and May 2008 to determine whether their state/territory collected breastfeeding data on its birth certificate. Responses were categorized as follows: (1) breastfeeding data currently collected; (2) breastfeeding data not currently collected but implementation date set; or (3) breastfeeding data not currently collected and no implementation plans. RESULTS: In May 2008, 56.6% (30 of 53) of US states and territories were collecting data on breastfeeding status at hospital discharge on their birth certificate. The questions used to collect breastfeeding data, however, had not been standardized. Approximately one quarter (12 of 53) reported that they were not yet collecting breastfeeding data on their birth certificate but that an implementation date had been set. Approximately one fifth (11 of 53) indicated that their state birth certificate did not plan to collect breastfeeding data by January 2010. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 79% of the registrars reported that breastfeeding data were collected on the birth certificate or that the process would begin within the next 2 years. Future revisions to the Standard Certificate of Live Birth breastfeeding question should assess breastfeeding exclusivity. The revision process should include feedback from health professionals who collect these data, pretesting of the revised question for feasibility, and extensive training before data collection.
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 | 0.032 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".