Attachment in the Context of Early Years Pedagogical Practice: Early Childhood Educator and Director Insights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that early childhood education and care is relationship laden, research into attachment can contribute towards our understanding of early childhood education relationships. There is, however, a lack of research in this field and available research is largely absent of the voices of early childhood professionals and directors who work in early years environments. On these grounds a qualitative instrumental case study, nested in a social constructivist paradigm, was designed in Ontario, Canada, to gain insight into how attachment is (dis)embodied in their practice. The ten interviews that informed findings suggest that although attachment merges with practice, reluctance exists to intentionally embrace attachment theorizing and terminology. Instead, attachment is cloaked in care and love discourse, with "two-sided" inclinations. Participants of this study compel pre and in-service organizations to fortify their training to ensure that pedagogical approaches espouse the cornerstones of attachment theory and terminology, most notably to counter attachment (mis)understandings. Findings furthermore point to the intersectionality between the personal attachment history of professionals who work with young children, and their capacity to nurture security in their pedagogical practice.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".