Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have documented the benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and baby.1,2 Professional organizations, therefore, widely recommend exclusive breastfeeding until the age of six months, and continued breastfeeding up to 12 months and beyond as optimal infant nutrition.3-7 Yet breastfeeding rates around the world fall alarmingly short of these goals.8 Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada’s easternmost province, is no exception. In fact, a recent study based on information from 20069 showed Newfoundland and Labrador to have the country’s second-lowest breastfeeding initiation rate (75%, compared with the national average of 90%), and its lowest rate of exclusive breast-feeding at six months (6%, compared with the national average of 14%). A study done in Newfoundland 20 years ago provides some historical context:10 while breastfeeding initiation per se was not captured, less than half (42%) of mothers reported breastfeeding exclusively while in hospital, 57 % were formula feeding, and 1% were breastfeeding with formula supplementation; only 11% remained breastfeeding exclusively at six months. No published studies of current infant feeding practices in hospital are available. Therefore, we set out to do a chart review of the question at the Janeway Children’s Hospital-Health Sciences Centre in St. John’s, the provincial capital (population approximately 100,000).
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 | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.026 |
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".