MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091894921 · doi:10.1177/089033440101700308

The Effect of Breastfeeding Education on Adolescent Beliefs and Attitudes: A Randomized School Intervention in the Canadian Ojibwa Community of Sagkeeng

2001· article· en· W2091894921 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia J. Martens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Lactation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialMedicineDemographyPsychologyFamily medicineDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyPediatricsNursingInternal medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sagkeeng First Nation's adolescent breastfeeding educational session was evaluated using a randomized pretest-posttest control group design. The intervention group received the session first; the control group received the session following the posttest. A retention test to measure overall retained learning was given to all students 10 days later. Breastfeeding beliefs increased (mean +/- SD = 41.9 to 47.0, P = .0047) from pretest to posttest for intervention subjects but not for controls. There were no changes in bottle-feeding beliefs or breastfeeding attitudes. There was an increase in breastfeeding beliefs from pretest to retention test for all students (true treatment effect [TTE] = .85 standard deviation units [SDU], P = .004). Learning was gender specific, with females experiencing increases in breastfeeding beliefs (TTE = 1.12 SDU, P = .004), decreases in bottle-feeding beliefs (TTE = -.77 SDU, P = .04), and a trend to increased breastfeeding attitudes (TTE = .41 SDU, NS). Males showed small, inconsistent learning effects. Learning occurred in the areas of health, convenience, cost, and decreased embarrassment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations53
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Human LactationSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207