The baby‐led weaning method: A focus on mealtime behaviours, food acceptance and fine motor skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Baby‐led weaning (BLW) is an alternative complementary feeding method by which children feed themselves starting at 6 months with suitable solid finger foods. Despite its increasing popularity worldwide, research is limited on its effects on diet‐related behaviours and no study has yet addressed its association with fine motor skills. This cross‐sectional study aimed to compare 10‐ to 14‐month‐old children's mealtime behaviours, food acceptance and fine motor skills between the BLW and traditional spoon‐feeding (TSF) methods (n = 82; 41 per group). Parents completed three online questionnaires regarding feeding practices, eating behaviours and food consumption acceptance, and the Peabody developmental motor scale test was performed in person with each child. Compared to the TSF method, BLW was associated with a higher satiety responsiveness score (mean ± SEM: BLW 13.6 ± 0.5 vs. TSF 11.6 ± 0.5, p = 0.005), a slower eating pace (BLW 10.0 ± 0.5 vs. TSF 11.4 ± 0.5, p = 0.04), and a marginally higher grasping skill score and fine motor quotient (p = 0.05 for both). There was no difference in food acceptance between the two feeding methods. Parental pressure was negatively associated with some food acceptance and mealtime behaviours. BLW is associated with beneficial mealtime behaviours and possibly with fine motor skills development. This study reiterates the importance of avoiding pressuring infants while eating.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".