When you do a search, you can sort the results bibliographically alphabetical or by “rank”. What is Rank?
Rank refers to the search engine’s “best guess” as to the relevance of the result to the search you specified. The exact method of ranking used varies a bit depending on the search. In its most basic level, when you specify a single search term, rank looks at the density of the matches for the word in the document, and how close to the beginning of the document they appear as a measure of importance to the paper’s topic. The documents with the most matches and where the term is deemed to have the most importance, have the highest “relevance” and are ranked first (presented first).
When you specify more than one term to appear anywhere in the article, the method is similar, but the search engine looks at how many of those terms appear, and how close together they appear, how close to the beginning of the document, and can even take into account the relative rarity of the search terms and their density in the retrieved file, where infrequent terms count more heavily than common terms.
To see a simple example of this, search for the words (not the phrase, so no quotes):
Look at the density of matches in each document on the first page of the hits. Then go to the last page of matched documents, and observe the density of matches within the documents.
A more complex search illustrates this nicely with a single page and only 15 matches:
counter*tr* w/25 “liv* out” w/25 enact*
There are a lot of word forms and variants of the words (due to the * wildcards) above that can match, but the proximity (w/25) clause limits the potential for matching. What’s interesting here though is how easily you can see the match density decrease as you view down the short list.
The end result of selecting order by rank is that the search engine’s best “guess” as to which articles are more relevant appear higher on the list than less relevant articles.
For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.
Klyman, C.M. (2014). The Origins of Attachment: Infant Research and Adult Treatment (Relational Perspectives Book Series), by Beatrice Beebe and Frank M. Lachmann, Routledge, New York and London, 2014, 256 pp.. Psychodyn. Psych., 42(4):706-711.
(2014). Psychodynamic Psychiatry, 42(4):706-711
The Origins of Attachment: Infant Research and Adult Treatment (Relational Perspectives Book Series), by Beatrice Beebe and Frank M. Lachmann, Routledge, New York and London, 2014, 256 pp.
Review by: Cassandra M. Klyman, M.D.
Being invited to review The Origins of Attachment was a privilege and a profitable enterprise. Its clinical worth is inestimable as attested to by the skilled therapists who, as part of the volume, review the findings of the authors' research in relation to their own vivid clinical experiences. Certainly I did the same. These elegant and meticulous analytic microdissections of split-screen videos, 2.5 minutes in length, between mothers and their month-old and then year-old first-borns are represented by a few pages of line drawings that are highly evocative and give rise to discussions of adult cases by the authors and their invited discussants. When we reach the end of the book, we have been exposed to a study of the evolution of the pleasure/pain, approach/avoidance paradigms of psychoanalysis and psychology in the context of object relations, specifically intersubjectivity.
Significantly the camera and its slowed, timed replay reminds us what neuroscientists have been demonstrating for some time now, that our implicit responses are not prompted by what we consciously perceive. There is an apperception that occurs milliseconds before we raise our mitt to catch the “fly” ball; we remove our hand from the stove before we recognize it is hot. The hand is quicker than the eye. We learn here that our requirement for homeostasis of our arousal system, while likely formed in utero, is what mothers and we, as therapists, must attend to.
Sigmund Freud's wistful hope in the “Project” (1895) that future research would bring clearer understanding about mental states has come to some fruition via the advances of technology of the last two decades. Neuroimaging has done much to expand our knowledge about the integration of neural systems with immunology, hormones, and the external world. Video technology here provides us with a valuable tool to understand how gaze, head orientation, and the shape of the mouth (from pursed lips to wide smile), touch, and rhythms of vocalization most likely interact with the innate mirror neurons of mother and baby to establish a trajectory of attachment style.
As a candidate I had the opportunity to be taught by Selma Fraiberg and Daniel Stern who were pioneers in studying mothers' and infants' visual interactions. I watched those sad movies that were made by Spitz and Bowlby in the nursery.
[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]