Clinical application of attachment theory in permanency planning for children in foster care: The importance of continuity of care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Permanency planning is a critical issue facing all children in foster care. Foster children frequently suffer from developmental delays and severe behavior problems, often leading to repeated displacements that in turn increase the risk for attachment disorders. To prevent the emergence of such disturbances, an Attachment Clinic was developed in Montreal to offer consultation to Youth Protection workers. A specific problem has frequently been identified in this Clinic: Should a child who has developed a significant attachment to his or her foster parents return to the biological parents or stay in the foster family? The choice between the two families is even more difficult when the parenting competencies of the biological parents seem to have progressed while the child has developed secure attachments in the foster family. Clinical cases will be presented to illustrate such dilemmas. Concepts rooted in attachment theory have been very useful to understand such problems, and have led us to believe that children's best interests lie in the preservation of their attachment ties and that repeated ruptures of such ties constitute a severe trauma. Resistances of the milieu to our position will be discussed as well as the Court's decisions in light of Canadian jurisprudence.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".