Best for Whom? Experiences of Breastfeeding
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
‘Breast is best’ is the ubiquitous refrain that apparently captures state and public attitudes towards breastfeeding. However, as any media report of breastfeeding in public indicates, support for breastfeeding is far more fickle than such a slogan suggests. This contradiction between vociferous promotion and perpetual controversy does not prevent the close association between breastfeeding and good mothering, nor does it deter women from assessing their parenting against its parameters. With varying degrees of individual ‘success’, all of the women interviewed for this project expressed broad support for breastfeeding and described it as the normative practice of the good mother. This chapter examines this support for breastfeeding and the tensions it creates for women as they invoke the language of ‘nature’ to justify its superiority, account for breastfeeding ‘failures’ and risk breastfeeding for ‘too long’. That these are the themes that frame the women's experiences of breastfeeding is evidence of the diversity of socioeconomic circumstances that comprise this small sample (five described themselves as working-class and a further two reported “working-class backgrounds”) and the complex conclusions about black motherhood that may be gleaned from their narratives. My intention here is to expand the predominant thinking around black women's breastfeeding experiences beyond claims that they reject breastfeeding for its risky proximity to nature (Blum, 1999) or that those women who embrace breastfeeding do so in acquiescence to white, middle-class norms (as suggested by Forna, 2000). The mothers I interviewed had different experiences with breastfeeding but each began from the premise that ‘breast is best’. Their negotiation of this discourse was framed by their broader ideas about what constitutes good parenting and how such parenting is made possible by access to economic resources, and their disgust or reverence (depending on their attitudes towards AP) for breastfeeding beyond babyhood. This chapter considers these negotiations in greater detail. As previous chapters have outlined, concern with breastfeeding has been a feature of state and public interest in the UK and Canada since at least 1900 (Carter, 1995; Baillargeon, 2009; Nathoo and Ostry, 2009). Independent of its association with AP, breastfeeding attracts a great deal of attention due to its many ascribed benefits and transformative capacities. Acknowledged by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) as the ‘crucial food for children's health and development’ (UNICEF, 2017), efforts to promote breastfeeding have taken on greater significance in recent years.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».