MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071767564 · doi:10.1177/0890334410365068

Lactation and Breastfeeding Research Studies: Who Should Provide Consent for the Neonate?

2010· article· en· W2071767564 on OpenAlexaff
Joy Noel‐Weiss, A. Kirsten Woodend, Sonya Kujawa-Myles

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Lactation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsHalTechUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingLactationInformed consentMedicineBreast feedingFamily medicineObstetricsAlternative medicinePediatricsPregnancyBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research ethics guidelines do not provide sufficient direction for breastfeeding and human lactation studies. This article presents the principles of consent for research studies and discusses rationales for who should consent for infants in lactation and breastfeeding research studies.

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)0.327
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.417
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3270.417
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.021
Scholarly communication0.0070.016
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0200.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.791
GPT teacher head0.682
Teacher spread0.109 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Human LactationSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207