MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3019285509 · doi:10.1093/pch/19.10.550

La nutrition du nourrisson né à terme et en santé, de six à 24 mois : un aperçu

2014· article· fr· W3019285509 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey Critch, Société canadienne de pédiatrie, Comité de nutrition et de gastroentérologie

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyHumanitiesMedicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La nutrition du nourrisson né à terme et en santé est un document conjoint de Santé Canada, de la Société canadienne de pédiatrie, des Diététistes du Canada et du Comité canadien pour l’allaitement. Publié de nouveau en septembre 2012, il contenait des recommandations sur l’alimentation du nourrisson de la naissance à six mois. Il a été mis à jour en avril 2014 pour y incorporer des recommandations sur l’alimentation des nourrissons plus âgés et des jeunes enfants de six à 24 mois. Le présent point de pratique expose le processus d’élaboration du document et les principes d’alimentation, ainsi que des recommandations à l’intention des cliniciens. Les professionnels de la santé qui conseillent les familles en matière de nutrition du nourrisson et du jeune enfant sont invités à lire le document intégral, parce que les exposés approfondissent et clarifient les conseils résumés dans les principes et les recommandations du présent point de pratique. Le document intégral peut être consulté dans le site Web de Santé Canada (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/infant-nourisson/recom/recom-6-24-months-6-24-mois-fra.php).

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)0.007
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.005

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences→French-language works237,207→