Reproductive-Aged Women’s Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Infant-Feeding Practices: An Experimental Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using an experimental design, this study assessed knowledge, attitudes, and intentions regarding infant feeding practices among Canadian female university undergraduates (N = 285). Participants completed a survey of knowledge, attitudes, and intentions with respect to infant-feeding practices. Two versions of the survey were randomly distributed to participants: one containing a photograph of a woman breastfeeding her infant (n = 131) and the other containing a photograph of the same women bottle-feeding her infant (n = 154). Findings indicated that the majority of the sample had been breastfed (84%) and intend to breastfeed their own offspring (97%). The intention to breastfeed future offspring was predicted by knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of social norms. Participants reported more positive attitudes toward visual depictions of breastfeeding compared with bottle-feeding but less positive views of breastfeeding in public compared with bottle-feeding in public. Participants also significantly underestimated the health benefits and optimal duration of breastfeeding. The findings highlight gaps in knowledge that may contribute to premature cessation of breastfeeding among Canadian women and suggest the need for breastfeeding education.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".