With Laura: Attachment and the Healing Potential of Substitute Caregivers within Cross-Cultural Child Welfare Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secure attachment has been consistently associated with positive outcomes for children. The complex and intergenerational trauma resulting from colonialism that Aboriginal people in Canada have suffered may threaten the development of secure attachment. Using a case example drawn from social work practice, this paper proposes that Aboriginal children who are insecurely attached and traumatized present particular treatment needs. There is little prior research addressing the treatment needs of insecurely attached Aboriginal children in out-of-home care. Further, in provincial and territorial child welfare agencies Aboriginal children are overwhelmingly in the substitute care of non-Aboriginal caregivers. This paper looks to attachment theory for a treatment approach within these cross-cultural relationships. Attachment theory has shown that the attachment styles of children can be reliably predicted at a rate of 75 percent by looking to those of their caregivers. Additionally, children have been shown to be capable of developing multiple attachment styles in response to the attachment styles of the adults with whom they are in caregiving relationships. Thus, given the stronginfluence of caregiver attachment on the attachment styles of children, it is compelling to look at the potential impact of the attachment styles of substitute caregivers on the children in their care. This paper proposes that in provincial or territorial child welfare it may be necessary to promote substitute caregivers who are securely attached and to acknowledge the context of trauma within which these children and caregivers are striving for well-being.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".