MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206758041 · doi:10.46692/9781529207965.005

Mother Knows Best? Bedsharing against Expert Advice

2020· other· en· W4206758041 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvice (programming)Computer sciencePsychologyInternet privacyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleep is a universal and widely debated topic for parents and parenting experts. The where, when and how of infant sleep motivates public awareness campaigns, forum discussions, scholarly research and parenting literature, each offering different solutions to the problem of managing babies’ sleep. Sleep is the subject of this level of debate and interest not only because babies are universally known for sleeping erratically but also because of the danger associated with sleep, specifically Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Also known as cot death or, more recently, Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy, SIDS is the unexplained or undetermined death of a child within its first year of life. While the cause of SIDS is unknown, research has identified a number of risk factors such as smoking, and preventative measures such as a supine sleep position. The latter spurred perhaps the most famous anti-SIDS campaigns in the mid-1990s: Back to Sleep. The campaign advised parents to put babies to sleep on their backs and successfully lowered SIDS incidence rates in the UK, Canada and other countries. Although rates have fallen dramatically since this campaign, SIDS remains a cause for concern in both countries, remaining one of the leading causes of death in children under two, and has inspired ongoing Safe Sleep campaigns that advise parents of the merits of breastfeeding and the dangers of smoking, alcohol and drug use while caring for an infant. In this chapter, I examine AP's solution to the problem of sleep: bedsharing, defined as a baby and its caregiver sharing an adult bed. The status of bedsharing is controversial in the world of public health and, indeed, among mothers, whether they reject or embrace AP practice. The sleeping habits reported by the mothers I interviewed echoed the findings of a 2019 study in the UK that reported that over three quarters of parents had bedshared despite public health warnings against the practice. Motivations for disregarding public health advice varied, but in this chapter, I highlight how these narrative defences of bedsharing reveal the currency of ‘nature’, enduring gendered divisions of labour in infant care and the complexities of competing sets of parental expertise in contemporary parenting culture. In these myriad ways, AP is revealed as an expression of intensive mothering ideology uniquely suited to the neoliberal context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.013

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207