Baby-led Weaning: A Preliminary Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To date, baby-led weaning (BLW) has not been examined in a Canadian population. This research investigated common BLW practices and compared associated knowledge and perceptions of practicing mothers and health care professionals (HCPs). METHODS: Sixty-five mothers practicing BLW and 33 HCPs were surveyed using 2 online questionnaires. Mothers were recruited through the Newfoundland and Labrador BLW Facebook page and HCPs via email at 2 regional health authorities. RESULTS: Mothers described BLW in terms of food shape and consistency (whole, solid); however, in practice, some mothers offered puréed foods such as infant cereals. More HCPs than mothers indicated choking, inadequate energy, and iron intake as concerns. Mothers relied on the Facebook page over HCPs for BLW information and support. Although all practicing mothers would recommend BLW to others, less than half (48.5%) of HCPs would support it in their practice. CONCLUSIONS: Mothers following BLW vary greatly in their experiences and adherence to BLW. They view the practice and its disadvantages very differently than HCPs. Although most HCPs were aware of BLW, few were familiar with specific practices. HCPs may benefit from a greater understanding of BLW to provide guidance to the growing number of mothers following this practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".