Infant Feeding Practices Among Indigenous Women in Northwest Territories, Canada: Results From the Maternal and Infant Health Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This project occurred in three Northwest Territories (NWT) communities and aimed to assess infant feeding practices and experiences among Indigenous mothers. Utilizing a cross‐sectional study design, self‐identifying Indigenous women of childbearing age (15–49 years) who had delivered in the past three years were invited to participate. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via a semi‐structured questionnaire regarding infant feeding intentions, feeding experiences, and contact with the baby after childbirth. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Of the 145 participants (mean age 29.78 years; SD ±6.08), 12% were pregnant. Most participants (73%) reported having had the intention to exclusively breastfeed before birth; 87% initiated breastfeeding, with 82% receiving breastfeeding initiation support at the hospital or health centre; and 48% reported no challenges breastfeeding. 76% had skin‐to‐skin contact when holding the baby for the first time. Rates of skin‐to‐skin contact and rooming‐in were significantly higher ( p < 0.0001) among participants who had vaginal births than among participants who had emergency and scheduled Caesarean ‐sections. Regarding feeding, 44% of participants exclusively breastfed for up to three months, and 50% introduced solid foods between six and twelve months. Traditional foods and medicine were introduced to 66% of infants before twelve months. Three themes emerged: barriers to breastfeeding, facilitators of breastfeeding, and formula feeding. Many women participating in this project successfully initiated breastfeeding and reported a positive experience with no challenges. To further improve infant nutrition in NWT, a community‐led approach leveraging local expertise, traditional knowledge, and the wisdom of community Elders is encouraged.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".