Commentary: Getting to Compliance. Multisector dialogue, collaboration and the International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ensuring exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of an infant's life with ongoing breastfeeding to 2 years of age could decrease child deaths by 13%.1 The inappropriate marketing of infant formula and breast milk substitutes can present a challenge to meeting this critical goal, which is why, in 1981, the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes (the Code).2 The Code remains today an important yet deeply divisive piece of international policy intended to prevent inappropriate marketing and promote breastfeeding globally. In his paper in this issue of the Journal of Public Health, Stewart Forsyth argues that the Code has instead had the opposite effect because it has driven a wedge between the various sectors needed to dialogue and collaborate to promote breastfeeding. This criticism could also be heard in the hallways at the 65th World Health Assembly in Geneva this past May, and it reflects more broadly, the general atmosphere of mistrust between stakeholders in the infant and young child nutrition (IYCN) community.
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 | 0.017 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.103 | 0.103 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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".