MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Complementary feeding education to mothers in health facilities of Manya‐Krobo district of Ghana

2009· article· en· W3176398324 on OpenAlexaff
Jasna Lin Robinson, Grace S. Marquis, Anna Lartey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristian ministryFocus groupMedicineHealth educationFamily medicineNursingFamily healthPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Ghana, the prevalence of young child undernutrition is highest between 9 and 21 mo of age; inadequate complementary feeding (CF) is one of its major causes. This study examined health service education focused on CF and its relationship with mothers' knowledge and reported practices. Two focus groups were conducted with mothers of young children (n=14). Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with Ministry of Health (MOH) personnel (n=3), doctors (n=3), nurses (n=13), health assistants (n=5), Queen Mothers (n=6), and fathers (n=8). All focus group discussions and interviews were tape‐recorded and translated for coding and analysis. Messages on CF were provided via 10‐min health talks, posters, and private counseling. While all health workers recommended starting CF at 6 mo, messages for older infants did not consistently follow MOH feeding guidelines. Reported barriers to CF education included lack of audience‐appropriate teaching aids and limited in‐service training. Like health workers, mothers and fathers' knowledge of the recommended timing for CF initiation was good but, in practice, progression to a family diet was problematic. Practical CF advice is needed and should be integrated and reinforced throughout the health system.

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)0.001
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicChild Nutrition and Water Access→French-language works237,207→