Improving Breastfeeding Supports in the United States: Exploring Convenience, Moments of Parental Savoring, and Cultivating Connection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The act of breastfeeding often dissects private and public life, allowing for intimate moments between parent and child in public spaces. The existing tensions are between the lack of social acceptance for breastfeeding and the emphasis on breastfeeding’s health benefits. The impact of these tensions comes to life when considering that, of babies born in 2018 across the United States, only 24.9% of infants were exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life [1], which is more than 11% less than rates across the world [2]. Utilizing a qualitative research methodology and the public health Socio-Ecological Model, the study discussed contributes to the small body of research that examines parental emotions, positive moods, perceived stress, and enhanced mental health benefits. The study explores parents’ positive breastfeeding experiences as something more than an act of nourishment or cultural construct. The findings center parents’ enjoyable experiences of breastfeeding as moments of convenience, savoring, and cultivating connection. The findings are paired with implications for increasing supports across multiple levels of influence of the SocioEcological Model to improve breastfeeding supports.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".