Inuit Tuttarvingat Use of Cloth Diapers in Inuit Communities Pilot Project 2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose • To reduce garbage by re-using products • To encourage families to save money by using cloth diapers and • To promote Inuit midwifery and the Irnisuksiiniq -Inuit Midwifery Network Web site. Methods -Participant Search• Advertised via radio, Public Service Announcements, Canadian Prenatal Nutrition Program Coordinators and posted in health centres and hamlets.• We rec'd 27 women who were interested from Inuit Nunangat.15 were chosen (6) in Cape Dorset, (1) Makkovik, (5) Kugluktuk, (1) Qikiqtarjuaq, (1) Clyde River. Method -Partners• Partnered with Arctic Coops Ltd to supply the participants with various products, such as detergent, vinegar, and paper towels for the duration of the pilot (6 months).* Method -Questions• Types of questions in the interview:• ease/difficulty of use, • community support (daycares/babysitters),• social change (making a difference in environment, or moving back to traditional methods of diapering), and • personal experience.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".