Transitions, the risk and the relationships: a comprehensive literature review exploring the postpartum breastfeeding journey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women’s postpartum experiences are influenced by multiple interactions during a period of extraordinary change. In relation to these interactions feeding choices emerge. Breastfeeding, as an important infant feeding option, is of particular interest to health care professionals due to the prevention, health promotion, and early intervention opportunities available. In this project a review of selected literature, within an issues articulation and resolution framework, facilitates exploration of the current state of knowledge about women who choose to breastfeed their babies and identifies issues related to women’s breastfeeding experiences. Understanding the context of women’s feeding decisions provides direction for reflection on nursing practice development. The challenging balance for nurses is in providing sensitive interventions and individualized care in association with population health and health promotion services. Discussion of the issues provides insight into some of the challenges to providing nursing supports and also identifies areas that need to be made more visible to health care planners and decision makers about the care issues surrounding women, infants, and families during important postpartum transitions. Further research opportunities relate to health care priorities and to learning about effective care approaches especially for women who are more difficult to engage in research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".