MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395797250 · doi:10.1177/084456211304500303

Infant-Feeding among Low-Income Women: The Social Context that Shapes their Perspectives and Experiences

2013· article· en· W2395797250 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Julia Temple Newhook, Valerie Ludlow, Leigh Anne Newhook, Kimberly Bonia, Janet Murphy Goodridge, Laurie Twells

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBreastfeedingMisinformationMedicalizationContext (archaeology)Nonprobability samplingDevelopmental psychologySocial supportFocus groupPsychologyNursingMedicineSocial psychologySociologyEnvironmental healthPediatricsGeographyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the perspectives of low-income women in order to better understand the social context that shapes their infant-feeding perspectives and experiences. The authors used purposive sampling to conduct 3 focus groups with 19 women who were formula-feeding their infants in 1 urban and 2 rural communities in the eastern region of the island of Newfoundland in Canada. Elements of the social context for infant-feeding included the prevalence of myths and misinformation about breastfeeding; cultural expectations about infant behaviour; the postnatal experience, including the medicalization of birth and breastfeeding; partner support and child-care workload; cultural stigma of breastfeeding; and a moralizing ideology that equates breastfeeding with "good mothering. "The authors discuss the implications of the findings from a nursing and public health perspective, offering 7 recommendations for how nurses and health professionals might better support women and their families.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207