Expansion of the Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding into Neonatal Intensive Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization/United Nations Children's Fund Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative: Revised, Updated, and Expanded for Integrated Care (2009) identifies the need for expanding the guidelines originally developed for maternity units to include neonatal intensive care. For this purpose, an expert group from the Nordic countries and Quebec, Canada, prepared a draft proposal, which was discussed at an international workshop in Uppsala, Sweden, in September 2011. The expert group suggests the addition of 3 "Guiding Principles" to the Ten Steps to support this vulnerable population of mothers and infants: 1. The staff attitude to the mother must focus on the individual mother and her situation. 2. The facility must provide family-centered care, supported by the environment. 3. The health care system must ensure continuity of care, that is, continuity of pre-, peri-, and postnatal care and post-discharge care. The goal of the expert group is to create a final document, the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative for Neonatal Units, including standards and criteria for each of the 3 Guiding Principles, Ten Steps, and the Code; to develop tools for self-appraisal and monitoring compliance with the guidelines; and for external assessment to decide whether neonatal intensive/intermediate care units meet the conditions required to be designated as Baby-Friendly. The documents will be finalized after consultation with the World Health Organization/United Nations Children's Fund, and the goal is to offer these documents to international health care, professional, and other nongovernmental organizations involved in lactation and breastfeeding support for mothers of infants who require special neonatal care.
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 | 0.086 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".