The breastfeeding paradox: Relevance for household food insecurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitigating the harmful effects of adverse social conditions is critical to promoting optimal health and development throughout the life course. Many Canadians worry over food access or struggle with household food insecurity. Public policy positions breastfeeding as a step toward eradicating poverty. Breastfeeding fulfills food security criteria by providing the infant access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets dietary needs and food preferences. Unfortunately, a breastfeeding paradox exists where infants of low-income families who would most gain from the health benefits, are least likely to breastfeed. Solving household food insecurity and breastfeeding rates may be best realized at the public policy level. Notably, the health care provider's competencies as medical expert, professional, communicator and advocate are paramount. Our commentary aims to highlight the critical link between breastfeeding and household food insecurity that may provide opportunities to affect clinical practice, public policy and child health outcomes.
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 | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| 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".