L’attachement et la mentalisation en pédopsychiatrie : une fenêtre sur le fonctionnement des enfants et de leurs parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Mental health professionals who work with children face various challenges, requiring them to consider factors that aim to promote healthy adaptation in their clients. There is a growing body of literature showing that child attachment pattern, as well as mentalizing ability in both children and their parents, are related to various indicators of well-being including mental health. However, studies assessing these constructs in clinical samples are sparse. Method Forty-nine children (2-6 years of age) and their parents were recruited through the Clinique spécialisée 0-5 ans of the Hôpital en santé mentale Albert-Prévost (HSMAP). A two-hour laboratory visit was carried out where parents and children completed individual and parent-child dyad tasks and filled out questionnaires. Various dimensions of parent and child functioning were assessed including the mother-child attachment relationship and parents' mentalization ability. Results Preliminary results indicated that child attachment pattern was related to children's behavioral and executive functioning as well as parents' psychiatric symptoms and parenting-related stress. Moreover, parents in our sample had lower levels of mentalizing abilities than those found in normative samples. Parents' mentalizing ability was related to the presence of psychiatric symptoms, parenting-related stress, and a history stressful life events. Conclusion These results highlight the need for mental health professionals working in a child psychiatric clinic to consider the child's attachment pattern and the mentalization ability of children and their parents, throughout the assessment process and subsequent implementation of interventions. In the last section of the manuscript, we present different ways we have integrated these concepts into our clinical work with children and parents referred to HSMAP.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".