Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study breastfeeding in the context of social interactions, distinguishing between peer influences and intergenerational transfer of breastfeeding behavior. Using data from Infant Feeding Practices Study II, we estimate peer effects in breastfeeding decisions. There is strong evidence of peer effects, which may suggest the presence of the social multiplier in breastfeeding that could lead to an amplified social response to policy interventions. However, the prevalence of breastfeeding in a peer group needs to achieve some critical level in order for the peer effects to become significant. Knowing more than five peers who breastfed has a highly significant positive effect on the likelihood of breastfeeding at months three and six postpartum, and the duration of partial and exclusive breastfeeding. Our results suggest the presence of a positive externality in breastfeeding, which may result in an under-provision of the good (breastfeeding). Therefore, a Pigovian subsidy may be needed to promote breastfeeding and correct for the externality We also find evidence of inter-generational transmission of breastfeeding behavior, which may help explain why, despite active public health campaigns aimed at promoting breastfeeding, the prevalence of breastfeeding in the U.S. remains modest.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".