Bag Free in the Bay State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The deleterious effect of formula company-sponsored discharge bags on breastfeeding is well established. As of July 2012, all 49 maternity facilities in Massachusetts had banned these bags, making it the second "bag-free" state in the United States. Obstacles to changing this long-standing practice were numerous, including concerns regarding the cost of a substitute gift. This study was designed to describe what practices maternity facilities in Massachusetts have adopted in place of giving out a formula company-sponsored discharge bag. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Maternity facilities in Massachusetts were surveyed regarding discharge gift practices. Information was collected regarding gifts given and cost. RESULTS: The response rate was 100%. Fifty-nine percent of the facilities replaced the formula company-sponsored bag with their own gift bag carrying the hospital's logo. Bags were either given empty or contained educational materials and/or a gift such as a T-shirt, hat, or baby book. Fourteen percent of the facilities gave a gift that did not include a bag. Twenty-seven percent of facilities gave no gift. Cost of the gifts ranged from $1 to $35, with a mean cost of $10.67. The hospital budget was used to partially or fully fund 58% of gifts; 22% were covered in part by donations. CONCLUSIONS: Although most maternity facilities surveyed replaced the formula company-sponsored discharge bag with a different gift, one-quarter gave no replacement. These data indicate that discontinuing discharge gifts can be a readily accepted, cost-neutral step toward evidence-based breastfeeding best practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".