MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6983315930

Maternal psychopathology and infant attachment security: a meta-analysis

2016· dissertation· en· W6983315930 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsPsychopathologyModerationMaternal sensitivityPsychological interventionChild psychopathologyMental healthDevelopmental psychopathologyAttachment theory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mothers who are experiencing psychopathology are often unable to provide sensitivity to their infants, which is critical for the development of a secure attachment. The objective of the current study was to provide a statistical, quantitative consensus on the relationship between maternal psychopathology and infant attachment, by performing a number of meta-analyses. Prevalence rates of non-secure attachment in infants of mothers with overall and specific psychopathologies were calculated. Infants of mothers with psychopathology were also found to be at increased risk for developing a non-secure attachment, displayed significantly greater levels of attachment non-security, and there was a significant relationship between symptomology and non-security. Moderator analyses were also run to determine if any variables moderated this relationship. The results of this study indicate that it may be beneficial for clinicians to identify mother-infant dyads who may benefit from early interventions that focus on improving maternal mental health and enhancing infant attachment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.039
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics→French-language works237,207→