Mothering with an Intellectual Disability: A Phenomenological Exploration of Making Infant‐Feeding Decisions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mothers with intellectual disability are less likely than mothers without intellectual disability to breastfeed their infants, but there is little literature that addresses infant-feeding decisions among this population. This study explores experiences of mothers with intellectual disability in making and carrying out infant-feeding decisions. METHODS: Using a phenomenological approach, in-depth interviews were conducted with four mothers with intellectual disability. RESULTS: Analysis focused on making and carrying out infant-feeding decisions. Three sub-themes of making infant-feeding decisions emerged: being familiar with benefits of breastfeeding, owning the initial decision and preparing for infant-feeding. Two sub-themes of carrying out infant-feeding decisions transpired: facing challenges and receiving support. CONCLUSIONS: The prenatal period was a crucial time for the mothers regarding infant-feeding decisions. It is the time in which they felt the most decision-making power, yet opportunities to prepare for possible challenges were missed.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it