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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 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".