MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W962453739

Examining Self-Efficacy, Help-Seeking, and Grit as Predictors of Exclusive Breastfeeding Antepartum to One-Month Postpartum

2015· article· en· W962453739 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shilpa Goel

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingGritSelf-efficacyPsychologyPostpartum periodSocial psychologyEnvironmental healthDevelopmental psychologyMedicineObstetricsPregnancyPediatrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Health Organization and Health Canada recommend mothers exclusively breastfeed to six-months postpartum for the many benefits provided to both the mother and the child. The purpose of this study was to examine maternal psychosocial factors that may predict exclusive breastfeeding practice. A 104 primiparous mothers participated in the study by completing online surveys once antepartum and at one-month postpartum. The results showed exclusive breastfeeding rates at one-month postpartum were lower than breastfeeding intentions reported antepartum. Help-seeking was similar among both exclusively and non- exclusively breastfeeding mothers. Conversely, self-efficacy and grit were higher among exclusively breastfeeding mothers both antepartum and postpartum. This study is the first report of antepartum grit as a predictor of exclusive breastfeeding. The findings from this study provide novel insights into exclusive breastfeeding predictors and lay the groundwork for future studies into psychosocial factors as predictors of exclusive breastfeeding behaviour.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)→Same topicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences→French-language works237,207→