Shared decision‐making for infant feeding and care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite decades of research establishing the importance of breastfeeding, skin-to-skin contact and mother-infant closeness, the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has underscored the hidden assumption that these practices can be dispensed with no consequences to mother or child. This article aims to support shared decision-making process for infant feeding and care with parents and health care providers during the unprecedented times of the pandemic. It proposes a structure and rationale to guide the process that includes (1) discussing with parents evidence-based information and the different options to feed and care for an infant and young child in the context of the pandemic as well as their potential benefits, risks and scientific uncertainties; (2) helping parents to recognize the sensitive nature of the decisions and to clarify the value they place on the different options to feed and care for their infant or young child; and (3) providing guidance and support needed to make and implement their decisions. A shared decision-making process will help parents navigate complex feeding and care decisions for their child as we face the different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 | 0.079 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".