MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404121157 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1471252

Individual- and system-level determinants of breastfeeding in a low-resource setting

2024· review· en· W4404121157 on OpenAlexaff
Miranda G. Loutet

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingCaesarean sectionContext (archaeology)MedicineBreast feedingPublic healthBreast milkResource (disambiguation)NursingEnvironmental healthFamily medicinePediatricsPregnancyGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The benefits of breastfeeding are widely established and therefore the World Health Organization recommends that every child be exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months of life and continue breastfeeding up to 2 years of age or beyond. However, the rate of exclusive breastfeeding is low globally and has declined in Bangladesh in recent years. In this review, Bangladesh is used as an example to demonstrate the complex individual- and system-level determinants of breastfeeding in a low-resource setting. Mothers face barriers to breastfeeding within the context of marketing by commercial milk formula companies, limited safe alternatives to breastfeeding directly from the breast, and insufficient resources to support breastfeeding in the hospital, community, and workplace setting. Future research and implementation science is required to investigate the overlapping effects between breastfeeding and the high antibiotic use and Caesarean section rates in Bangladesh, along with public health efforts to promote breastfeeding based on robust evidence.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207