Physicians as mothers: breastfeeding practices of physician-mothers in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the initiation rate and duration of breastfeeding among female physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to identify demographic factors that might influence duration of breastfeeding in this population. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: Newfoundland and Labrador. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighty licensed female physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported initiation of breastfeeding for each baby born, duration of breastfeeding in number of months, and reasons for ending breastfeeding. RESULTS: The response rate was 68%. The breastfeeding initiation rate among respondents was 96.6%. More physicians who graduated in 1980 or later breastfed for longer periods (63.9% vs 33.3%, P = .008). More family doctors than specialists breastfed their babies for longer periods (65.5% vs 33.3%, P = .004). More physicians whose partners were working part-time breastfed for longer periods than physicians whose partners were working full-time (83.3% vs 50.8%, P = .037). Other factors, such as age, income, maternity leave and benefits, part-time or full-time work, and urban or rural practice, did not affect duration of breastfeeding. Personal issues accounted for 51% of respondents' ending breastfeeding; baby issues accounted for 38%, practice issues for 33%, medical school issues for 4%, and societal issues for 1%. CONCLUSION: The breastfeeding initiation rate among female physician respondents in Newfoundland and Labrador was 96.6%; more than 50% of these physicians breastfed for longer than 7 months. Physicians graduating in 1980 or later breastfed their babies for longer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".