Rights for whom? Linking baby’s right to eat with economic, social, and cultural rights for women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breastfeeding women are primary food producers par excellence, delivering a custom-made product to fit the exact needs of a favoured clientele. The importance of breastmilk as a first food has been acknowledged in recent years by many states, which have taken measures to protect and encourage breastfeeding in acknowledgment of the World Health Organization’s 2002 Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding. Within both state and grassroots efforts to promote it, breastfeeding is often framed in terms of “rights,” though it is not always clear what these entail. This perspective article considers the role of breastmilk as a critical food for children that ensures their “right to the highest attainable standard of health” as articulated in Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and interrogates mothers’ (and others’) role in providing it. While food studies, and even more so, food security scholarship and activism should incorporate breastfeeding scholarship, it should avoid the mistake of framing breastfeeding as a “choice” made by individual women. This article advocates incorporating breastfeeding into the right to food/food security agenda by explicitly supporting measures that increase women’s access to broader economic, social, and cultural (ESC) rights. This, in turn, would put breastfeeding within reach, as an option, for more women. Thus breastfeeding becomes more likely and pressure is diverted from individual mothers and the often false ‘choice’ to breastfeed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".