MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7011918915

Nutrition education in health services and other determinants of complementary feeding in the Eastern region of Ghana

2010· dissertation· en· W7011918915 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthMcGill University
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusMalnutritionHealth educationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Public healthHealth servicesPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Ghana, rates of undernutrition peak between 9 and 21 months of age; one major cause is inadequate complementary feeding (CF).This study examined the relationship between hospital-based CF education and caregivers' reported practices through interviews with health workers (n=24), caregivers (n=23), and Queen Mothers (n=6).Additionally, the associations among maternal HIV status, socioeconomic factors and introduction of solids were examined using data from 288 mother-infant pairs.Health workers and caregivers had good knowledge about CF initiation.However, health workers' recommendations for older infants did not consistently follow national guidelines.Barriers to CF education included limited teaching-aids and in-service training.Among caregivers, challenges included inconsistent CF messages and poverty.Sixty-two percent of mothers introduced solids before 6 months (5.2 ± 1.4 months).Mothers who introduced early were more likely to be HIV positive, have low-literacy and low-quality housing.Practical CF advice should be integrated and reinforced throughout the health system.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicChild Nutrition and Water Access→French-language works237,207→