Maternal cognitive skills and infant feeding practices in rural Guatemala
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International health organizations recommend exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) to 6 mos and breastfeeding (BF) to 2 y for healthy mothers and infants. In many developing countries maternal schooling is inversely related to compliance with these recommendations. To investigate whether schooling influences infant feeding practices through acquisition of maternal cognitive skills (MCS) we collected data on MCS assessed with academic achievement tests and feeding practices assessed by maternal recall for a rural Guatemalan infant cohort (n= 341 births) between 1996 and 1999. We assessed relationships between MCS and onset of lactation (OL), first week feeding practices, adequacy of feeding in the first month and EBF at 1 week, 1 mo, and 3 mo postpartum (pp) using logistic regression. Mothers in the middle tertile of MCS were more likely to supplement prior to OL (OR high vs low : 1.2, {95%CI: 0.5, 3.0}; OR middle vs. low : 2.6 {1.1, 5.7}) and give medicines in the first week (OR high vs low : 2.54 {0.6, 10.8}; OR middle vs low :5.3 {1.7, 16.8}), and less likely to report EBF at 1 mo pp (OR low vs middle : 3.6 {1.4, 9.3}; OR low vs. high : 1.6 {0.56, 4.6}). Mothers with an intermediate level of cognitive skills exhibited poorer infant feeding practices during the first mo of infant life, but not thereafter. These results suggest cognitive skills acquired during schooling influence infant feeding practices in complex ways. Supported by NIH: HD‐29927, TW005598 , CG‐181‐449
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".