Proof of concept of a mind–mindedness intervention for mothers hospitalized for severe mental illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies 1 and 2 investigated how maternal severe mental illness (SMI) related to mothers' mind-mindedness (appropriate and nonattuned mind-related comments). Study 1 showed that mothers with SMI (n = 50) scored lower than psychologically well mothers for both appropriate and nonattuned comments, whereas mothers with SMI in Study 2 (n = 22) had elevated levels of nonattuned comments. Study 2 also tested the efficacy of a single-session video-feedback intervention to facilitate mind-mindedness in mothers with SMI. The intervention was associated with a decrease in nonattuned comments, such that on discharge, mothers did not differ from psychologically well controls. Study 3 assessed infant-mother attachment security in a small subset of intervention-group mothers from Study 2 (n = 9) and a separate group of standard care mothers (n = 30) at infant mean age 17.1 months (SD = 2.1). Infants whose mothers completed the intervention were more likely to be securely attached and less likely to be classified as insecure-disorganized than those of mothers who received standard care. We conclude that a single session of video-feedback to facilitate mind-mindedness in mothers with SMI may have benefits for mother-infant interaction into the second year of life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".