Dual modality feeders: a group of human milk feeders with unique practices and needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Dual modality feeding (DMF) - feeding human milk interchangeably from the breast and from a bottle - comes with unique practical, emotional and relational challenges, as well as support needs. Yet, there is little research that explores the experiences of individuals who use DMF in the Canadian context. The aim of this study is to explore the practices, challenges, reasons and enablers of DMF. DESIGN: Repeat, semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted at 8 weeks and 22 weeks postpartum. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed using a critical feminist lens. SETTING: Nova Scotia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Ten DMF mothers. RESULTS: DMF practices were influenced by a mix of social and material circumstances, including breast-feeding challenges, the involvement of support persons, finances and access to lactation support. Individuals who predominantly fed at the breast expressed milk strategically to mitigate transitory breast-feeding challenges, for convenience under specific circumstances, and to share feeding responsibilities with other caregivers for personal and practical reasons. Individuals who mainly bottle-fed did so due to long-term breast-feeding challenges or a need to return to employment. Enablers of successful DMF were consistent between the two groups and included practical, personal and relational aspects. CONCLUSIONS: DMF is a unique practice compared to feeding human milk solely from the breast or bottle. Despite the potential growing prevalence of DMF, it is currently understudied and inadequately addressed in existing support programmes in Nova Scotia. Tailored programming and public messaging are needed to support DMF families.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".