MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048275471 · doi:10.1089/bfm.2020.0090

Powdered Baby Formula Sold in North America: Assessing the Environmental Impact

2020· article· en· W3048275471 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karin Cadwell, Anna Blair, Cindy Turner‐Maffei, Maret Gabel, Kajsa Brimdyr

Bibliographic record

VenueBreastfeeding Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasPer capitaInfant formulaBreastfeedingClimate changeMedicineAgricultural economicsEnvironmental healthEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental sciencePopulationEconomicsPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas emissions must decline by around 45% by 2030 and reach net zero in 2050. Biofuels, solar, and wind energy are obvious choices for reduction of the 75% of emissions from the energy sector (including transportation), but making reductions in the remaining 25%, the food sector, is more of a challenge. One way is to change our diets to increase low-carbon food alternatives. Objective: We chose to examine the impact of powdered baby formula products. The aim of this study is to compute a minimal estimate of green house gas (GHG) emissions for powdered baby formula products sold in North America comprising Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Results: We found that in 2016, the North America Greenhouse Gas emissions (in tons of CO 2 eq.) attributable to sales of powdered formula for Canada was 70,256, for Mexico, 435,820, and for the United States, 655,956. The North American per capita emissions based on infants and toddlers from birth to 36 months of age in 2016 was, at a minimum, 59.06 kg of CO 2 eq. Conclusion: The environmental and Greenhouse Gas impact of powdered baby formula, and related hazards arising from climate change, can be a relevant factor for health care providers in their advice to families on infant feeding. This study makes an innovative and potentially useful addition to the emerging evidence on this issue and should be considered when developing and funding infant and young child feeding policies and supportive programs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBreastfeeding MedicineSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207