Exclusive Breastfeeding among Canadian Inuit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Very little population-based research has been conducted around the exclusive breastfeeding practices of Inuit Canadians. OBJECTIVES: This research aims to assess the distribution of exclusive breastfeeding among Inuit Canadians and to identify factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding as recommended. METHODS: We use data from 188 infant-mother dyads who completed the Nunavut Inuit Child Health Survey, a cross-sectional, population-based survey of Inuit children aged 3 to 5 years. A series of multinomial logistic regression models were run to identify factors associated with 4 exclusive breastfeeding durations (≤ 1 month, > 1-< 5.5 months, 5.5-6.5 months, and > 6.5 months). RESULTS: Of infants, 23% were exclusively breastfed as recommended (ie, between 5.5 and 6.5 months; 95% CI, 16.2-29.3). Many infants (61%) were exclusively breastfed for less than 5.5 months and 16% (95% CI, 10.9-22.0) were exclusively breastfed for more than 6.5 months. Families receiving income support were less likely to discontinue exclusive breastfeeding before 5.5 months (pOR1- < 5.5 months = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13, 0.85) relative to those not receiving income support, in adjusted models. No other measured factors were significantly related to exclusive breastfeeding duration. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of Inuit Canadian infants receive suboptimal exclusive breastfeeding. National, provincial, and community-specific interventions to protect, promote, and support exclusive breastfeeding should emphasize not only the benefits of exclusively breastfeeding to 6 months but also the importance of timely introduction of complementary foods into the infant's diet.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".