Représentations mentales maternelles : concepts et mesures liés à l’attachement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<titre>Résumé</titre>Au cours des dernières années, la littérature concernant l’attachement a vu émerger de multiples concepts relatifs aux représentations mentales maternelles. La sensibilité maternelle ayant été détrônée de son statut d’unique médiateur de la transmission intergénérationnelle des patrons d’attachement, plusieurs équipes de chercheurs proposent des concepts et mesures portant sur les représentations parentales de l’enfant qui visent notamment à expliquer le développement de la relation d’attachement parent-enfant. Ce foisonnement est certes encourageant, mais il comporte également le risque que la validité de ces mesures ne soit pas suffisamment démontrée, conduisant ainsi à un manque de rigueur empirique. Le but de cet article est d’introduire les cinq principaux concepts et mesures présents dans la littérature actuelle en soulignant leurs forces et leurs limites sur les plans conceptuel et empirique.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →2 of 3 models called this metaresearch. This work is contested: it sits on the field's empirical boundary, and whether it counts depends on which model you asked. It is one of the 51 works in the disagreement dossier.
Critical review of the concepts and measures used in the attachment literature, explicitly flagging insufficiently demonstrated validity and weak empirical rigor; sits on the boundary between domain theory and a critique of measurement practice.
The article evaluates concepts and measurement approaches used in attachment research, making research measurement its primary object.
Domain psychology review of attachment-related constructs and measures; advances developmental theory rather than studying research as practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".