E‐communication among mothers of infants and toddlers in a community‐based cohort: a content analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of a study to explain how mothers used a community based, cohort-based electronic communication system. BACKGROUND: Early psychosocial support for families is regarded as inadequate. Employed women with young children can feel isolated from other families. Most parent e-mail lists are in a read-only format, with parents receiving informative e-mails from a corporation or a commercially motivated initiative. In an increasingly virtual age, it is important to examine parents' use of online support groups initiated by parents. METHOD: We used a qualitative descriptive design to conduct an inductive content analysis of archived threads of e-mail from 40 middle class Canadian mothers involved in a grass-roots online support cohort that shared birth year and geographical community. Two hundred and ninety-two pages of single-spaced mother-based communication that occurred from June 2004 to May 2005 were analysed. FINDINGS: Mothers used cohort-based electronic communication to build a local community, request and provide emotional support, share information and facilitate learning, and provide validation for the 'normalcy' of other women's mothering experiences. They shared stories and feelings, expressed sympathy, offered accolades, expressed appreciation for shared experiences, conveyed gratitude for support, and shared beliefs and expectations. Mothers anticipated childrearing difficulties shared strategies, exchanged advice, confirmed others' strategies and shared information. CONCLUSION: Women in particular geographical areas can use asynchronous mail systems to share information with and obtain support from other mothers. Cohort-based electronic communication could be particularly important in rural areas where travel is restricted for women and access to professional support is limited.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".