MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921501102 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2019.10.1.5

Factors Affecting Initiation and Duration of Breastfeeding Among Off-Reserve Indigenous Children in Canada

2019· article· en· W2921501102 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Isabella Romano, Martin Cooke, Piotr Wilk

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBreastfeedingIndigenousAttendanceResidenceDemographyDuration (music)MedicineEducational attainmentEnvironmental healthPediatricsSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous children in Canada are less likely to be breastfed compared to non-Indigenous children; however, little information about rates and correlates of breastfeeding exist. We used a nationally representative survey to examine breastfeeding initiation (n = 9,330) and duration (n = 6,760) among First Nations, Métis, and Inuit children. In our sample, 72.5% of children had been breastfed, and 57.9% of these individuals were breastfed until six months. Factors associated with increased breastfeeding included mothers’ educational attainment, children’s weight at birth, mothers' residential school attendance, and region of residence. Having Indian Status and lower household income were associated with lower breastfeeding initiation and duration. Our findings suggest that targeted efforts to encourage and support breastfeeding among Indigenous women are needed. Additional research using contemporary data are required in Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Indigenous Policy JournalSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207