MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2487426880 · doi:10.1097/nt.0000000000000164

New Health Canada Nutrition Recommendations for Infants Birth to 24 Months Address the Importance of Early Nutrition

2016· article· en· W2487426880 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maude Perreault, Sandra Mikail, Stephanie A. Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Today · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsBreastfeedingHarmonizationMedicineEnvironmental healthGeneral partnershipPopulationHealth professionalsPediatricsFamily medicineEconomic growthHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite recognition that the first 1000 days from conception to 2 years of life is of critical importance to later health, specific guidelines for infant feeding do not commonly exist in many developed countries, and where they do, recommendations are not consistent across countries. In 2012 and 2014, Health Canada, in partnership with major Canadian child health societies, released an official joint statement to guide health professionals in feeding recommendations for infants targeted separately to birth to 6 months and to 6 to 24 months. Based on an extensive review of recent evidence and accepted practice, the recommendations provide guidance on breastfeeding, age of introduction and types of foods, food safety, family engagement in establishing healthy eating practices, responsive feeding, growth monitoring, as well as menu planning. Future directions should consider harmonization of infant feeding recommendations across countries and their incorporation into population-based dietary guidelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition TodaySame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207