MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091562354 · doi:10.3148/71.2.2010.79

<i>Infant Nutrition in Saskatoon:</i> Barriers to Infant Food Security

2010· article· en· W2091562354 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Brendine Partyka, Susan J. Whiting, Deanna Grunerud, Karen Archibald, Kara Quennell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthInfant formulaMedicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207