Second Opinions: Negotiating Agency in Online Mothering Forums
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY BACKGROUND: Online forums and other virtual communities are an increasing source of postpartum support and information for first-time mothers. However, there is little evidence about how new mothers in Canada access and use online resources. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine how first-time mothers accessed information and support both online and off-line during the first six months postpartum and how their experiences were constructed through social and institutional discourses. METHODS: A qualitative feminist poststructuralist approach was used to analyze an online discussion board with first-time mothers in Nova Scotia. RESULTS: Mothers who used the online discussion board experienced a sense of community with other mothers where empathy and encouragement were integral to the ways in which information and support were shared. "Weak ties" (with strangers) were important and led to the following themes: (a) empathy, encouragement, and information; (b) socialization; (c) blurring the boundaries of online and off-line networks; and (d) Developing community. CONCLUSIONS: These online forums offer insight for health professionals looking to improve mothers' care postpartum and point to a need to foster spaces for new mothers to talk to each other.
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 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".