Use of the Adult Attachment Projective Picture System in an Assessment of an Adolescent in Foster Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child maltreatment has been associated with a host of negative outcomes including impaired social relationships (Rogosch, Cicchetti, & Aber, 1995), depression (Toth, Manly, & Cicchetti, 1992), poor self-concept and motivation (Vondra, Barnett, & Cicchetti, 1990), and delinquency and conduct problems (Cook et al., 2005; Grotevant et al., 2006; McCabe, Lucchini, Hough, Yeh, & Hazen, 2005; Ryan & Testa, 2005). An assessment of the mental representation of attachment relationships could offer additional relevant and useful information to the evaluation of youth in foster care, and could inform treatment and placement considerations. The Adult Attachment Projective Picture System (AAP) is a relatively new measure of internal representations of attachment based on the analysis of a set of stimuli designed to systematically activate the attachment system (George, West, & Pettem, 1997). This article considers the use of the AAP with a maltreated adolescent in a clinical setting and uses a case study to illustrate the components of the AAP that are particularly relevant to case conceptualization and interventions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".