MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408683869 · doi:10.36819/sw25.015

DEVELOPING A CONCEPTUAL MODEL TO EVALUATE SHELF-LIFE EXTENSION AS A RESILLIENT STRATEGY IN HUMAN MILK BANKS

2025· article· en· W4408683869 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marta Staff, Navonil Mustafee, Natalie Shenker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsExtension (predicate logic)Conceptual modelShelf lifeComputer scienceLife extensionFood scienceChemistryBiologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic and higher levels of uncertainty due to climate change have emphasised the need for resilient and secure supply chains. This is also true for Human Milk Banks (HMBs), which are responsible for providing screened and safe Donor Human Milk (DHM) to neonatal hospital infants. Given the perishable nature of human milk, current UK operations are constrained by practices yielding a maximum shelf-life of six months. For improved resiliency and improved adverse event preparedness we present a conceptual model of HMB operations, which is an augmented version of one previously communicated, incorporating an additional process pathway yielding DHM with an extended shelf-life of 18 months. To address the associated operational constraints, our new conceptual model provides a framework for exploring the potential benefits of extended shelf-life on supply chain performance, especially related to inventory management and an enhanced ability for human milk banks to face future disruptions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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