Breastfeeding beyond infancy: a concept analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To report an analysis of the concept of breastfeeding beyond infancy. BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization and Health Canada recommends breastfeeding is sustained until 2 years old and beyond. However, little is known about breastfeeding a child beyond 12 months old. Breastfeeding beyond infancy is defined as any breastfeeding over the age of 12 months with no parameters placed on who initiates the weaning process. DESIGN: Rodger's framework of concept analysis was used to organize and guide data analysis. DATA SOURCES: A historical, systematic search of the literature up until 2014 was conducted using the search terms: breastfeeding OR breast feeding OR breast-feeding AND sustained, extended, prolonged, long-term and duration. METHODS: Literature was selected according to whether breastfeeding beyond 12 months old was described or analysed. All study designs and observational, descriptive and opinion papers were included in the initial screenings. RESULTS: Four characteristics were chosen as essential attributes of breastfeeding beyond infancy: health benefits, maternal profiles, parenting style and experiences. Consequences included stigma and secrecy. Additionally, the role of the nurse in supporting breastfeeding beyond infancy was explored. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of breastfeeding beyond infancy is entrenched in parenting beliefs that serve to address the child's needs by fostering an intimate and attached relationship between the mother and child. Many women conceal their breastfeeding behaviour to protect themselves from unsolicited judgement and comments. Nurses are well-served to understand, support and promote the practice of breastfeeding beyond infancy to ensure the bio-psycho-social health of their clients.
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".