MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109770904 · doi:10.1111/mcn.13115

Mothers' experiences of breastfeeding a child with tongue‐tie

2020· article· en· W3109770904 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jillian Waterman, Tiffany Lee, Holly Etchegary, Anne Drover, Laurie Twells

Bibliographic record

VenueMaternal and Child Nutrition · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOral and Craniofacial Lesions
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineInterpersonal communicationFocus groupTongueQualitative researchDevelopmental psychologyInterpersonal relationshipNursingPediatricsSocial psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tongue-tie is characterized by an abnormally tight, short and thick lingual frenulum restricting the tongue's movement. This functional impairment can hinder a child's ability to maintain an effective latch and suckle and may lead to complex breastfeeding difficulties. The primary aim of this study was to explore the experiences of mothers who have breastfed a child with tongue-tie, including their experiences with the health care system. A qualitative description study design was used. Two semistructured focus groups were conducted in February 2016 with a total of nine participants in the largest metropolitan area of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Content analysis using constant comparison revealed a common incongruity between participants' breastfeeding expectations and their actual experiences of feeding a child with tongue-tie. Three major themes are discussed: mothers' well-being, strained interpersonal relationships and frustration with the health care system.

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)0.002
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaternal and Child NutritionSame topicOral and Craniofacial LesionsFrench-language works237,207