Comparative Multi-Disciplinary Practice of Law: Paths Taken and Not Taken
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b><i>Background:</i></b> Responsive feeding promotes optimal feeding patterns and growth trajectories. Breastfeeding is thought to facilitate responsive feeding, but research to date has been limited to comparing formula-feeding and breastfeeding dyads. Using a within-subject approach, we aimed to assess maternal responsiveness to infant cues during two human milk feeding sessions differing by feeding modality (breastfeeding versus bottle feeding). <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> Nine mother-infant dyads (infants ≤6 months) were recruited from the Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia, from April to May 2018. Two human milk-feeding sessions, directly from the breast and from a bottle, were video-recorded in participants' homes, then scored using the validated Nursing Child Assessment Satellite Training (NCAST) Caregiver/Parent-Child Interaction Feeding Scale. The second half of feeding sessions were coded for infant satiation cues. <b><i>Results:</i></b> All women earned a college degree or higher, and were partnered. Mothers were aged mean ± standard deviation 33.2 ± 4.0 years; infants were 14.6 ± 6.9 weeks old and six (67%) were female. Mothers were more sensitive to infant cues during breastfeeding (NCAST Maternal Sensitivity to Cues sub-scale score, 15.0 ± 1.0) than bottle feeding (13.4 ± 1.6; <i>p</i> = 0.016). There was a significantly longer latency from feeding session midpoint to the first satiation cue during breastfeeding (minutes:seconds; 3:00 ± 1:53 versus 0:45 ± 1:18 bottle feeding, <i>p</i> = 0.038). There was no difference in the number of infant cues by feeding modality. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Despite the small sample with high socioeconomic status, this pilot study highlights differences in maternal responsiveness to infant cues by feeding modality with human milk, which warrants further investigation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".