MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145819326 · doi:10.1177/0890334408318833

Infant-Feeding Practices of Low-Income Vietnamese American Women

2008· article· en· W2145819326 on OpenAlexaff
Yashmi Mistry, Marjorie Freedman, Kathleen Sweeney, Clarie B. Hollenbeck

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Lactation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVietnameseLow incomeBreastfeedingMedicineEnvironmental healthDemographyPsychologyDemographic economicsPediatricsEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthy People 2010 breastfeeding goals include 50% exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months. In California, US, Santa Clara County Women, Infants, and Children (SCCWIC) data indicated Asian participants had low (5.6%) 6-month breastfeeding rates. To examine infant-feeding practices, Vietnamese breastfeeding peer counselors surveyed 133 Vietnamese SCCWIC participants (> or= 18 years old, nonpregnant, < 28 months postpartum) using a structured questionnaire regarding intentions, attitudes, and subjective norms toward breastfeeding. Results indicated that 75% initiated breastfeeding in the hospital (33% exclusively, 42% partially), and 25% exclusively formula fed. At survey time, 49% had terminated breastfeeding (average duration 4.4 months). Feeding intentions during pregnancy predicted feeding method used (P < .001). Most prenatal advice was from SCCWIC employees, friends, and doctors who supported breastfeeding. Most postnatal advice was from nurses who supported breastfeeding and bottle-feeding equally. Stronger control beliefs, peer counseling, and education were correlated with breastfeeding (P < .001). Improved postdelivery hospital advice may further increase breastfeeding initiation and duration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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