MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072247873 · doi:10.1097/anc.0b013e3181fd2263

The Importance of Touch in the Development of Attachment

2010· review· en· W2072247873 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttachment theoryInfant developmentMeaning (existential)MedicineFunction (biology)Focus (optics)Developmental psychologyPsychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until recently the role of human touch in the social world of the developing infant has not been given special attention. Instead the focus, in part due to John Bowlby's Attachment Theory, has centered on the critical need for a child to develop a secure attachment to his caregiver. To be sure, this has provided a valuable contribution to understanding and promoting a child's well-being in his early years and beyond. Yet Bowlby's theory is limited in its discussion of the meaning of human touch and its role in development of attachment. As such, it now becomes more critical to delve into the factors that significantly foster development of attachment, specifically the concept of human touch. With recognition of the importance for a child to develop secure attachment to his caregiver, the essential function that human nurturing touch provides in facilitating that connection is explored.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.435 · 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