Breastfeeding and Aboriginal Women: Validation of the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale–Short Form
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this methodological investigation, part of a prospective cohort study, was to test the reliability and validity of the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form (BSES-SF) among Aboriginal women.The sample comprised 130 breastfeeding Aboriginal women from the postpartum ward of an urban tertiary care hospital or a rural community hospital.The women provided baseline information while in hospital and were telephoned at 4 and 8 weeks postpartum for assessment of their method of infant feeding. The BSES-SF was found to be a valid and reliable tool for assessing breastfeeding self-efficacy among Aboriginal women. Significant differences were found in BSES-SF in-hospital scores among women who at 4 weeks postpartum were exclusively breastfeeding, combination feeding, or solely feeding formula (F(2) = 7.31, p = 0.001).The authors conclude that Aboriginal women with low breastfeeding self-efficacy in the early postpartum period may be at risk for early cessation and could benefit from additional breastfeeding support.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".