MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206440685 · doi:10.1177/14647001211042488

There's no formula for a good mother: shame and estranged maternal labour

2022· article· en· W4206440685 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFeminist Theory · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShameScholarshipBreastfeedingGender studiesSociologyMarxist philosophyQualitative researchFraming (construction)PsychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceMedicineLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article theorises a group of mothers’ experiences of shame as a result of feeding infant formula to their children. Drawing on interviews with formula and breastfeeding mothers, the author brings together insights from scholarship on shame, feminist scholarship on reproductive labour and the Marxist notion of estranged labour to demonstrate that shame causes the formula-feeding mothers in this study, who initially wanted to breastfeed, to be estranged in their labour as mothers. The article addresses a gap in qualitative infant-feeding scholarship, which focuses primarily on breastfeeding. It provides an empathic account framing breastfeeding and formula-feeding mothers as potential allies against ‘controlling images’ of motherhood who face different facets of the same pressure to fulfil idealised roles. Both scholarly work on reproductive labour, and public programmes supporting new mothers, should account more seriously for the experiences of formula feeding mothers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · 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