Pap, Gruel, and Panada: Early Approaches to Artificial Infant Feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper collects information on artificial infant feeding published before 1860, the year when commercial formula became available. We have extensive artifactual evidence of thousands of feeding vessels since the Bronze Age. Special museum collections can be found in London, Paris, Cologne, Fécamp, Toronto, New Mexico, and elsewhere. The literature on the use of animal milk for infant feeding begins with Soranus in the 2nd century CE. Literature evidence from the very first printed books in the 15th century proves that physicians, surgeons, midwives, and the laity were aware of the opportunities and risks of artificial infant feeding. Most 17th to 19th century books on infant care contained detailed recipes for one or several of the following infant foods: pap, a semisolid food made of flour or bread crumbs cooked in water with or without milk; gruel, a thin porridge resulting from boiling cereal in water or milk, and panada, a preparation of various cereals or bread cooked in broth. During the 18th century, the published opinion on artificial feeding evolved from health concerns to a moral ideology. This view ignored the social and economic pressures which forced many mothers to forego or shorten breast-feeding. Bottle-feeding has been common practice throughout history.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".