<i>Infant Nutrition in Saskatoon:</i> Barriers to Infant Food Security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We explored infant nutrition in Saskatoon by assessing current accessibility to all forms of infant nourishment, investigating challenges in terms of access to infant nutrition, and determining the use and effectiveness of infant nutrition programs and services. We also examined recommendations to improve infant food security in Saskatoon. METHODS: Semi-structured community focus groups and stakeholder interviews were conducted between June 2006 and August 2006. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes related to infant feeding practices and barriers, as well as recommendations to improve infant food security in Saskatoon. RESULTS: Our study showed that infant food security is a concern among lower-income families in Saskatoon. Barriers that limited breastfeeding sustainability or nourishing infants through other means included knowledge of feeding practices, lack of breastfeeding support, access and affordability of infant formula, transportation, and poverty. CONCLUSIONS: Infant nutrition and food security should be improved by expanding education and programming opportunities, increasing breastfeeding support, and identifying acceptable ways to provide emergency formula. If infant food security is to be addressed successfully, discussion and change must occur in social policy and family food security contexts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".