Feeding practices among Indonesian children above six months of age: a literature review on their magnitude and quality (part 1).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Indonesia, 37% of children under-five are stunted, 12% wasted and 12% overweight. Adequate feeding practices among children above 6 months of age are critical to tackle malnutrition. National surveys have been conducted to assess feeding practices but these aggregates hide geographic disparities. While several studies have been conducted in specific country locations to address this gap, no attempt has been made to reconcile available information. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of the literature on feeding practices among Indonesian children above six months of age. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in several databases using combinations of different search terms: feeding, child, Indonesia, MPASI/complementary feeding, gizi/nutrition, factor, determinant, praktek/practices. All documents were reviewed using a three-step procedure to assess content appropriateness and research quality. Available information was analyzed using current recommendations on feeding practices. RESULTS: Dietary diversity, consumption of iron-rich foods, active feeding and hygiene practices were among the non-optimal feeding practices. Consequently dietary intakes are not fulfilled for several micronutrients. Some feeding practices are worst in younger children. Differences between data from national and site-specific surveys are noted. Overall quality of the surveys needs to be strengthened. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, child feeding practices are not optimal. Indicators used to assess components of child feeding vary and make inter-survey comparisons challenging. The results also stress the need to investigate the underlying factors to optimal child feeding practices. The results may be used for advocacy of additional resource allocation for effective child feeding promotion programs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".