Benefits of mother goose: influence of a community-based program on parent-child attachment relationships in typical families.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An estimated 50 to 60% of children from typical families develop secure attachment relationships with their parents (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg, 1988); however, intervention research has focused primarily on interventions for high-risk clinical samples (Berlin, Zeanah, & Lieberman, 2008). In this project, the influence of a popular community-based parent-child program was assessed in a non-clinical sample of families. Families participating in a 10-week Parent-Child Mother Goose Program (n.d.) and families on the waitlist for the program were asked to complete questionnaires to assess parenting efficacy and satisfaction as well as parents' perception of their own and their child's attachment styles at the beginning of the program, the end of the program, and six months later. Mothers in the program group reported significantly more positive change in their reports of parenting efficacy over time and also reported significantly more change in their children's attachment category. Specifically, children in the program group were significantly more likely to be classified as secure over time (55% at T1 to 81% at T3) as compared to the waitlist participants (45% at T1 to 62% at T2). In this popular 10-week, community-based program, parents learned skills that continued to influence their relationship with their children six months after the conclusion of the program.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".