"Something is wrong with your milk": Qualitative study of maternal dietary restriction and beliefs about infant colic.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate new mothers' perceptions about the role of maternal diet in infant fuss-cry behaviour, and to explore patterns of food restriction in breastfeeding women. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Calgary, Alta. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one mothers of healthy singleton infants aged 6 months and younger. METHODS: Focus groups and one-on-one interviews with a semistructured interview guide, followed by content analysis. MAIN FINDINGS: Most respondents believed that infant cry-fuss behaviour was related to abdominal pain linked to feeding and had eliminated items from their diet in an attempt to change infant behaviour. Typical targets of elimination were caffeine, cruciferous vegetables (eg, broccoli and cabbage), garlic and onions, spicy foods, gluten, and beans. Women commonly viewed elimination diets as an extension of neutral or benign choices made during pregnancy, even when it led to extreme diet restrictions. Participants reported feeling appraised by society for their infant-feeding choices, and often harshly judged. Many women reported feeling confused by conflicting sources of reliable information on breastfeeding and preferred advice from trusted friends and family to that from health care providers or the Internet. CONCLUSION: The breastfeeding women in this study believed that maternal diet influenced infant cry-fuss behaviour, in spite of scientific evidence demonstrating the contrary. An understandable desire for a calm baby, as well as to be favourably judged by friends and family, can drive breastfeeding women to restrict their diet, often to the point of hardship.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".