MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899766973 · doi:10.1177/0011392118807512

Social roles and alienation: Breastfeeding promotion and early motherhood

2018· article· en· W2899766973 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lisa Smyth

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Sociology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsAlienationSociologyConceptualizationSituatedPromotion (chess)Social psychologyRespondentGender studiesPsychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers whether the social institutions through which early motherhood is experienced can support non-alienating role identification. Drawing on critical theory’s conceptualization of social roles, the analysis focuses on 20 interviews with middle-class mothers in Northern Ireland, taken from a larger dual-site study of early motherhood in 2009–2010. This region has one of the lowest rates of breastfeeding in the world and has a particularly intensive promotion strategy. Considering respondent experiences of the pressure to breastfeed, the article examines the consequences of a key institutional definition of good motherhood in the early stages. The article argues that the effort to rigidly impose a moral code as the role is taken on has potentially alienating effects, as it limits the scope for the agent to appropriate and identify with it. An approach to health promotion which instead trusts women to exercise situated moral judgement about infant care, rather than subjecting them to an externally imposed moral code, would reduce the emotional strain and potential for alienation in early motherhood.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.020
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent SociologySame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207