MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143946155 · doi:10.1177/0890334410390044

A Qualitative Study of Attitudes Toward Public Breastfeeding Among Young Canadian Men and Women

2010· article· en· W2143946155 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Patricia Kelly Spurles, Jessica Babineau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Lactation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBreastfeedingFocus groupPublic healthQualitative researchNova scotiaBreast feedingMedicineBreast milkPsychologyFamily medicineDemographyEnvironmental healthNursingPediatricsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims to explore, in qualitative terms, attitudes held by a sample of university-educated young men and women residing in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia about breastfeeding in public places. In sum, 20 women and 27 men between the ages of 18 and 23 participated in moderated single-sex focus groups that discussed breastfeeding, following a list of prepared questions and using photographs as discussion cues. Although participants uniformly stated that they desired their future children to be breastfed, 31 of 47 expressed restrictive attitudes toward exposure of the breast (eg, "should use washrooms," "okay if discreet") and breastfeeding in restaurants. Eight expressed positive unrestricted statements about breastfeeding in public spaces. Addressing widely held attitudes toward breastfeeding in public spaces, in addition to providing information about breastfeeding's health benefits, may be helpful in campaigns promoting breastfeeding.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations52
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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