Translating the International Code of Marketing of Breast‐milk Substitutes into national measures in nine countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (the Code) adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981 and regularly updated through subsequent WHA resolutions, represents the international policy framework for protecting breastfeeding against inappropriate marketing practices. By March 2016, at least 135 countries had some measures covering provisions of the Code in their legislation. The translation of the International Code into national measures was investigated in the context of the advocacy efforts undertaken by the Alive & Thrive (A&T) initiative with UNICEF and partners. A real-time evaluation was carried out over 22 months in seven Southeast Asian countries (Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic [Lao PDR], Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, and Timor-Leste) and two African countries (Burkina Faso and Ethiopia). Drivers of policy change and progress were examined. Two theory-based approaches were used: developmental evaluation and contribution analysis. Data collection methods included participant observation, key informant meetings, in-depth interviews, reflective practice, and desk review. Overall, countries made significant progress in translating the International Code into national measures and in moving forward throughout the policy cycle. The main driver of policy change was the creation of a strategic group, which engaged key relevant actors and supported the government in the performance of 15 critical tasks, which the analysis reveals is a second driver. Those critical tasks are described in this paper and could help public health advocates to anticipate the stages and challenges of policy change and develop more effective strategies to translate the Code into their legal framework.
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 | 0.061 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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".