MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062655554 · doi:10.1080/07399332.2014.888720

“Why Aren't You Breastfeeding?”: How Mothers Living With HIV Talk About Infant Feeding in a “Breast Is Best” World

2014· article· en· W2062655554 on OpenAlexaffabout
Saara Greene, Allyson Ion, Dawn Elston, Gladys Kwaramba, Stephanie Smith, Adriana Carvalhal, Mona Loutfy

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care For Women International · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsBreastfeedingBlameFeelingQualitative researchBreast feedingContext (archaeology)MedicinePsychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPediatricsSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infant feeding raises unique concerns for mothers living with HIV in Canada, where they are recommended to avoid breastfeeding yet live in a social context of "breast is best." In narrative interviews with HIV-positive mothers from Ontario, Canada, a range of feelings regarding not breastfeeding was expressed, balancing feelings of loss and self-blame with the view of responsibility and "good mothering" under the current Canadian guidelines. Acknowledging responsibility to put their child's health first, participants revealed that their choices were influenced by variations in social and cultural norms, messaging, and guidelines regarding breastfeeding across geographical contexts. This qualitative study raises key questions about the impact of breastfeeding messaging and guidelines for HIV-positive women in Canada.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations67
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care For Women InternationalSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207