Article: “Too Old” and “Too Cold”: Discomfort Towards Photographs of Breastfeeding Beyond Infancy and Public Breastfeeding in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Social norms and public perception of breastfeeding are well-established predictors of breastfeeding outcomes; however, little is known about perceptions of breastfeeding beyond infancy or public breastfeeding among the public in Nova Scotia, Canada. Research Aim: To explore public opinion about breastfeeding beyond infancy and public breastfeeding. Methods: In this cross-sectional study participants were recruited from public spaces in Nova Scotia, Canada. Using photo elicitation methods, participants ( N = 229) viewed six photographs of breastfeeding children aged 2 weeks, 13 months, and 2.5 years, one photograph captured at home, and the other in a public space (a café, a store, or outdoors). Participants were asked to score their self-rated comfort with each photograph on a 10.0 cm visual analog scale and asked to share their feelings about each photograph (open-ended responses). Results: Mean ( SD) visual analog scale comfort scores for photographs differed by location (private, 7.9 [2.2]; public, 7.3 [2.6]; p < .05) and child age (2 weeks, 8.5 [2.0]; 13 months, 7.5 [2.6]; 2.5 years, 6.9 [3.0]; p < .05). Participants who identified as women and parents self-reported significantly higher comfort with all photographs, while younger participants and urban dwellers were generally less comfortable. Open-ended responses varied considerably, but a higher proportion of negative comments were reported for older children feeding in public spaces (e.g., 2.5-year-old in public: “Inappropriate. Indecent. Abnormal.”). Conclusion: Given the importance of social norms in supporting breastfeeding, future public health campaigns should strive to normalize breastfeeding beyond infancy, and in public spaces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".