Reflective family play: A model for whole family intervention in the infant and preschool clinical population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes a new treatment model, Reflective Family Play, for clinical intervention in two-parent families of children aged 0 to 5 years. It is play-based and grounded in the evidence-based treatment approach of Watch Wait and Wonder (WWW) as well as the assessment tool known as the Lausanne Family Play paradigm (LFP). WWW is a dyadic treatment for caregivers and their infants or preschoolers that has been shown to shift attachment in the very young (N.J. Cohen, E. Muir, & M. Lojkasek, 1999; N.J. Cohen, M. Lojkasek, E. Muir, R. Muir & C.J. Parker, 2002). The LFP is a more recent adaptation of the Lausanne Trilogue Play paradigm (LTP; E. Fivaz-Depeursinge & A. Corboz-Warnery, 1999). Together, the LTP/LFP have now been used for over 2 decades as reliable measures of the family alliance and interactions in two-parent households. By combining concepts from WWW and the LTP/LFP, a novel approach is presented for treatment in two-caregiver households. Clinical excerpts are used to illustrate.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".