MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001860882 · doi:10.1177/0165025410365802

Mind-mindedness in adult and adolescent mothers: Relations to maternal sensitivity and infant attachment

2010· article· en· W2001860882 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Demers, Annie Bernier, George M. Tarabulsy, Marc A. Provost

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité LavalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaternal sensitivityPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyAttachment measuresStrange situationTheory of mindValence (chemistry)Young adultAttachment theoryCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the quality of maternal mind-mindedness among adult and adolescent mothers, using an assessment of the appropriateness and emotional valence of maternal mind-related comments while interacting with their infants. Twenty-nine adult mothers and 69 adolescent mothers participated in two assessments with their 18-month-old infants. Results showed that adult mothers used more mind-related comments when interacting with their child, especially comments referring to infant mental states. Adult mothers also used more appropriate and positive mind-related comments. Home observations and strange situation assessments revealed that two dimensions of mind-mindedness were associated with maternal sensitivity and three with infant attachment in adult mothers, whereas only one dimension was associated with maternal sensitivity in adolescent mothers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.368 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations97
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207