MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206718461 · doi:10.46692/9781529207965.006

Babywearing: Fads, Dangers and Cultural Appropriation

2020· other· en· W4206718461 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSwearing, Euphemism, Multilingualism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppropriationCultural appropriationSociologyEnvironmental ethicsAnthropologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between the techniques of (extended) breastfeeding, bedsharing and babywearing most commonly associated with AP, the latter is perhaps the most mainstream and uncontroversial. As the preceding chapters reveal, while the message that ‘breast is best’ suggests unequivocal support for breastfeeding, the reality is more complicated and involves mothers negotiating competing notions of expertise to claim the good motherhood that the ‘breast is best’ discourse promises. Bedsharing is more explicitly controversial, although there are now recent shifts towards advising the apparently significant proportion of parents who bedshare against advice to do so safely. Reflecting a parenting culture that assigns meaning to the most minute of parenting choices and tasks, both breastfeeding and bedsharing require mothers to articulate an explanation of their choices, whether addressing their ‘failures’ to feed appropriately or the dangers associated with sharing a bed with their babies. The mothers I interviewed for this study offered many justifications for these parenting decisions but most striking among them was the use of ‘nature’. ‘Nature’, especially when paired with experiential or maternal expertise, could be deployed to celebrate the benefits of extended breastfeeding or the ‘instinctive’ desire to sleep close to one's baby. However, recourse to the natural carries risks, both racialized and uniquely suited to the neoliberal moment, where women's ‘natural’ proclivities for childrearing can be cited as justification for the withdrawal of supportive structures and resources. This tension between what ‘nature’ discourses can open up and what they close down is mirrored in the wider work accomplished by intensive mothering ideology as it identifies mothers as uniquely suited to infant care while at the same time subordinating maternal ‘instinct’ to the authority of parenting experts. These same tensions are at work in state-produced advice and the women's narratives about babywearing. When compared with the debates around breastfeeding and bedsharing, babywearing appears relatively innocuous. Although there have been some concerns about safety, state bodies in both Britain and Canada have addressed these concerns matter-of-factly while still suggesting the practice as one option among many for carrying an infant. Babywearing is an inoffensively visible marker of the values of bonding and attachment so ubiquitous and unquestioningly accepted in contemporary parenting cultures.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSwearing, Euphemism, MultilingualismFrench-language works237,207