MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053291710 · doi:10.1080/14616734.2013.841051

Parsing the construct of maternal insensitivity: distinct longitudinal pathways associated with early maternal withdrawal

2013· article· en· W2053291710 on OpenAlexaff
Karlen Lyons‐Ruth, Jean‐François Bureau, M. Ann Easterbrooks, Ingrid Obsuth, Kate Hennighausen, Lauriane Vulliez‐Coady

Bibliographic record

VenueAttachment & Human Development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyConstruct (python library)Developmental psychologyLongitudinal studyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current paper expands on Ainsworth's seminal construct of maternal sensitivity by exploring the developmental pathways associated with one particular form of insensitivity: maternal withdrawal. Drawing on longitudinal data from infancy to age 20 in a high-risk cohort, we highlight how maternal withdrawal over the first eight years of life is associated with child caregiving behavior and with maternal role confusion, as well as with features of borderline and antisocial personality disorders. We also present evidence for the specificity of this pathway in relation to other aspects of maternal insensitivity and other aspects of child adaptation. To illuminate these pathways we both review recent published work and report new findings on the middle childhood and adolescent components of these trajectories. Finally, we consider the implications for assessment of maternal behavior in high-risk samples and indicate directions for productive future work.

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)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations94
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAttachment & Human DevelopmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207