MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Local concepts of infant illness among Mam‐Mayan women and impact on feeding practices: a qualitative study in the Western Highlands of Guatemala

2013· article· en· W3175776685 on OpenAlexaff
Mariah Kincaid, Odilia I. Bermúdez, Anne Marie Chomat, Marta Lucía Escobar, María García, Rosario Susi García, Marilyn E. Scott, Kristine G. Koski, Noel W. Solomons

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySte. Anne's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingFocus groupMedicineQualitative researchComprehensionEtiologyEnvironmental healthBreast feedingFamily medicinePediatricsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives To examine maternal beliefs regarding etiology, presentation and treatment of prevalent child illnesses in rural Mam‐Mayan Guatemalan communities. Methods 9 pregnant and 9 early‐lactating women already enrolled in a concurrent maternal‐infant health study participated in semi‐structured, in‐depth interviews. Two focus groups were conducted with community women. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analyzed with HyperResearch. Findings Most women ascribe infant parasitic, diarrheal and respiratory illnesses to a mix of local/culture‐bound and biomedical concepts of illness. Traditional herbs are routinely used to treat or prevent these conditions. Compliance with food requests made by the infant was mentioned as being protective against parasites, including during the first 6mo of life. Whereas “cold air” was associated with respiratory illness, specific foods considered “cold” in local narratives (fruits, chicken, avocado, potatoes) were associated with gastrointestinal illness. Conclusions Maternal beliefs about childhood illness influence infant feeding practices and may determine both exclusivity of breastfeeding during lactation and infant diet variety. Better comprehension is needed of how socio‐cultural realities impact health‐related behaviors and feeding practice outcomes. Funding: TUSM, IDSA, ASTMH

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences→French-language works237,207→