The Ability of Posters to Enhance the Comfort Level with Breastfeeding in a Public Venue in Rural Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The acceptance and support of breastfeeding in public venues can influence breastfeeding practices and, ultimately, the health of the population. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether posters targeted at the general public could improve acceptability of breastfeeding in public places. METHODS: A convenience sample of 255 participants was surveyed at shopping centers in 2 rural communities of Newfoundland and Labrador. Experimentally, questions were posed to 117 participants pre- and post-exposure to 2 specific posters designed to promote public acceptance of breastfeeding in public. RESULTS: Initially, we surveyed that only 51.9% of participants indicated that they were comfortable with a woman breastfeeding anywhere in public. However, context played a role, whereby a doctor's office (84.5%) or park (81.4%) were the most acceptable public places for breastfeeding, but least acceptable was a business office environment (66.7%). Of participants, 35.4% indicated previously viewing specific posters. We used a visual analog scale to test poster viewing on the acceptability of public breastfeeding in the context of a doctor's office and a restaurant. Results of pre- versus post-viewing of the promotional posters indicated significant improvements in both scenarios: in a doctor's office (P = .035) and in a restaurant (P = .021). CONCLUSION: Nearly 50% of the surveyed population indicated discomfort with a mother breastfeeding in public. Both cross-sectional and interventional evidence showed that posters significantly improved the reported level of comfort toward seeing breastfeeding in public.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".