MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226240296 · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcac091

Bowlby, Attachment and the Potency of a ‘Received Idea’

2022· article· en· W4226240296 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Michael Garrett

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Social Work · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFeminism, Gender, and Sexuality Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyQuarter (Canadian coin)Attachment theoryPsychoanalysisGender studiesPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This year marks the sixtieth anniversary of a report from the World Health Organisation (WHO) that furnished a mostly coruscating account of John Bowlby’s work on child attachment and maternal deprivation. Despite the WHO critique and a range of other critical interrogations, Bowlby contributions still constitute a ‘received idea’ within the discourse of social work. If criticisms are made of Bowlby, and what has been dubbed the ‘Bowlby School’, the reference point tends to be cogent feminist critiques emerging in the final quarter of the twentieth century. This article aims to excavate critical appraisals from the 1950s and 1960s. It will also be argued that endeavours to ‘retrofit’ Bowlby for our contemporary times present problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of Social WorkSame topicFeminism, Gender, and Sexuality StudiesFrench-language works237,207