Does Love Matter to Infants' Health: Influence of Maternal Attachment Representations on Reports of Infant Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is considerable support for the influence of maternal attachment on children's development (see Gerhardt, 2015), this is one of the first studies to examine the effects of maternal prenatal reports of attachment representations with close others on reports of infants’ health. Mothers (N = 483) completed surveys to assess attachment and depression in the second or third trimester of pregnancy, infants’ health over the first 6 months, and depression and infant temperament when infants were 6 months old. We found that insecure mothers, as compared to secure mothers, were more likely to report that their infants experienced colic and illnesses associated with immune, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems. It may be that secure mothers experience less anxiety associated with parenting and, as expected, were consistently found to report lower levels of infant illness symptoms. Alternatively, secure mothers would be expected to provide more consistent and responsive care compared to insecure mothers, which may also influence their infants’ physical health (see also Gerhardt, 2015). Future research needs to further explore this finding — do secure mothers simply perceive their infants to be healthier due to their own low anxiety or are infants of secure mothers healthier due to consistent and responsive care received?
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".