MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163192472 · doi:10.1186/1746-4358-5-19

Ways ahead: protecting, promoting and supporting breastfeeding in the context of HIV

2010· editorial· en· W2163192472 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen Marie Moland, Penny Van Esterik, Daniel Sellen, Marina Manuela de Paoli, Sebalda Leshabari, Astrid Blystad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Breastfeeding Journal · 2010
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersUniversity of Health and Allied SciencesMuhimbili University of Health and Allied SciencesUniversitetet i BergenUniversity of TorontoYork University
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineDeclarationContext (archaeology)ConfusionPsychological interventionHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Breast feedingTransmission (telecommunications)PediatricsNursingFamily medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The HIV epidemic coupled with the assumed benefits of infant formula for the children of all HIV-infected mothers have in complex ways changed public ideas about infant feeding and represents a threat to well established breastfeeding practices. In the wake of the confusion that postnatal prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV (PMTCT) interventions have created among HIV-infected mothers, infant feeding counsellors and the public at large, it is time to reinstate the principles of the Innocenti Declaration to protect, promote and support breastfeeding in the context of HIV. The challenge that lies ahead is a search for ways to restore the trust in breastfeeding as the normal and safest way to feed an infant. This requires continued research as well as concerted advocacy and action.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0180.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Breastfeeding JournalSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207