MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1914985447 · doi:10.1177/117718011501100303

Examining the Relationship between Attachment Styles and Resilience Levels among Aboriginal Adolescents in Canada

2015· article· en· W1914985447 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Johanna Sam, Hasu Ghosh, Chris G. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesProvidence Health CareInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsExtant taxonPsychological resilienceMental healthIntervention (counseling)Attachment theoryPsychologyIndigenousDevelopmental psychologyGerontologySocial psychologyMedicinePsychiatryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The history of colonization in Canada has a traumatic intergenerational impact on young Aboriginal people's health, which is evidenced by the wide health disparities (Adelson, 2005; Health Council of Canada, 2012). However, extant research shows that, through resilience, many Aboriginal adolescents overcome adverse situations and develop into healthy adults (Andersson & Ledogar, 2008). Knowledge of the ways and extent to which Aboriginal youth seek support to cope with stressful events may be improved by examining the distribution of attachment styles and their relationship with resilience. The data (n = 136) used for this study were obtained from the British Columbia Adolescent Substance Use Survey. Findings indicate resiliency was significantly associated with attachment style (p < .01). The study findings provide support for tailoring resilience mental health promotion and intervention resources according to attachment style to foster long-term engagement in programming that helps Aboriginal youth live a healthy and holistically balanced life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous PeoplesSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207