Lactation Newsmakers: Elaine Petitat-Côté: Making Good Use of Two UN Conventions to Advocate for Breastfeeding Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elaine Petitat-Côté was born in Canada and has lived for the greatest part of her life in Geneva. She has consistently worked with development, health, and women's organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), advocating for a public health approach to medicine that considers the social and economic realities of communities, and emphasizes the creation of healthy living conditions to ensure long-term, sustainable health outcomes This perspective supports a horizontal approach to medicine, in contrast to the narrower, vertical approach typically employed. As a member of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) she worked for the Geneva Infant Feeding Association (GIFA) on two main issues related to breastfeeding: maternity protection at work, and the rights of children to the highest attainable standard of health and nutrition, in particular by protecting breastfeeding. In this article, she explains her work at IBFAN-GIFA as it focused on the adoption and implementation of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 183 and Recommendation 191 on maternity protection. She also explains how she was able to use the review process built into the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to develop a rights-based approach to promote, protect, and support breastfeeding and make way to improving the legal, social, and institutional situation of breastfeeding in all countries examined by the Committee on the rights of the child.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".