Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bowlby’s attachment theory (AT) remains a popular way to understand infant, child, adolescent, and even adult and family dysfunction. However, attachment theory, which has not changed significantly since its inception, is a reductive theory that ignores a wider range of human needs and has caused significant hardship and trauma. The limitations of this model, particularly when applied outside the Eurocentric and ethnocentric frames of mainstream psychology, are well known.APPROACH: In this article, we suggest it is time to replace the reductive theory of needs that underpins AT with a comprehensive theory, one that could help us develop a less ideological, healthier, and more empirically informed approach to socialisation and social care; one that might help us answer Abraham Maslow’s eupsychian question which is how to build a society capable of actuating the full potential of all its citizens.CONCLUSIONS: The answer is simply this: the only way to actualise full human potential is to move the locus of human health and full development away from a single female, or even a single nuclear family, to a village, a community, and a society that understands humanity’s complex constellation of needs and that is consequently and exclusively geared towards meeting those needs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.022 |
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".