Mother Still Loves Best: Attachment Theory’s Influence on Mothering Practice-Then and Now
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Please note that due to some unfortunate political/financial circumstances surrounding The Association of Research on Mothering (ARM: York University), what had initially been intended as a joint venture between ARM and The Motherhood Foundation (MOM: NY) and Mamapalooza (NY) became, following ARM’s withdrawal, a venture sponsored by MOM and Mamapalooza. The conference was re-named “Amplifying M(Others) Voices 2010.” The venue remained the same. \n \nAnd it was a fantastic focussed conference with scholars, activists, and artists from around the world participating ! Starting with AU’s Dr. Gina Wong Wylies’ keynote address on the first morning of the conference, the 3 days were filled with excellent and diverse sessions all related to mothering practice and motherhood. My paper was part of a session entitled “Loving & Love in the Art of Motherhood” with the focus on notions of the “good mother.” The audience was generous in their interpretation and discussion of the overall theme and all of the presentations in this session were well received. Although I did have the sense that my paper, which was based in a very specific psychological theory, was perhaps a little too specific for this audience. There was lots of opportunity throughout the conference to chat and discuss ideas. I used a lot of the time to gather information and ideas for my new undergraduate course on “Mothering”. Meeting other scholars interested in “Motherhood” as an academic discipline was perhaps the most inspiring aspect of the conference. \n \nPlease note that my presentation was based on a recently published book chapter [Ross, L.R. (2010). Mom’s the word: Attachment theory’s role in defining the “good mother”. In L.R. Ross (Ed.), Feminist counselling: Theory, issues, and practice (pp. 22-51). Toronto: Women’s Press.] and consequently the presentation is not available to be reproduced online.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".