Understanding the Relationship Between Breastfeeding-Related Pain and Mothering Using an Agency Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motherhood represents the fusion of mother and woman wherein a mothering identity becomes central. Motherhood is often based on romanticized and/or negative ideologies that are impacted by experiences of being a mother. Using agency as a framework, women’s experiences of breastfeeding-related pain were explored in relation to context (iterational), thought patterns (projective), and decisions (evaluative). This case study, grounded in a feminist lens, we conducted in-depth interviews with 14 mothers (age range of 24 to 26 years) from an urban center in Southwestern Ontario, who had experienced breastfeeding-related pain. Using an agency framework, deductive thematic analysis was conducted resulting in the following themes: 1) iterational–which included peer groups, familiar experiences and societal pressures as the three main external forces that influenced a woman to breastfeed; 2) projective–women’s perceptions and evaluation of their mothering abilities were impacted by their context of breastfeeding-related pain resulting in feelings of guilt and frustration; and 3) evaluative–the strategies mothers developed to continue or discontinue breastfeeding (such as tangible-nipple shields, latch support clinics, and creams or intangible-social support options) as well as acceptance of their decision. The impact of the context of breastfeeding within a paternalistic medical context and the implications for practice as well as suggestions for empowerment are explored.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".