MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124680426 · doi:10.1177/0890334410390045

The Breastfeeding Team: The Role of Involved Fathers in the Breastfeeding Family

2010· article· en· W2124680426 on OpenAlexaff
Lynn A. Rempel, John K. Rempel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Lactation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsSt. Jerome's UniversityBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineFamily medicineNursingPsychologyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fathers influence mothers' breastfeeding decisions and experiences. Fathers' perceptions of their roles as members of the breastfeeding family are likely important components of that influence. To explore that possibility, 21 involved fathers of breastfeeding babies volunteered to be interviewed regarding their fathering breastfed babies and their roles in the breastfeeding family. Fathers identified their unique roles as team members ensuring that their babies received the benefits of breastfeeding. A primary fathering role was that of supporting breastfeeding by becoming breastfeeding savvy, by using their knowledge to encourage and assist mothers in breastfeeding, by valuing the breastfeeding mothers, and by sharing housework and child care. Fathers' nurturing roles involved fostering positive father-infant relationships in the face of limited opportunities to bond with their babies through feeding. The experiences of these fathers suggest the importance of assisting them to recognize their unique contributions to the nurture of their children as members of the breastfeeding team.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations215
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Human LactationSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207