Sex‐biased ratio of avoidant/ambivalent attachment in middle childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, new evidence is presented of marked sex differences in the distribution of insecure attachment patterns in middle childhood. Attachment was assessed with the Manchester Child Attachment Story Task (MCAST) in a sample of 122 Italian 7‐year‐olds. The four‐way distribution of attachment patterns was significantly unbalanced, with insecure boys more often avoidant (27%) than ambivalent (2%), and insecure girls more often ambivalent (25%) than avoidant (4%). In addition, boys were rated as more severely disorganized than girls on a continuous disorganization score. A survey of previous literature strongly collaborates these findings, showing that similar attachment distributions have been obtained cross‐culturally (US, Canada, and Israel) in nearly all of the (relatively few) studies in which children's sex had been taken into account. It is argued that sex biases in attachment avoidance/ambivalence become apparent starting at about 6–7 years, in contrast with the lack of sex‐related effects in infancy and early childhood, and probably anticipate the pattern of sex differences found in adults with romantic attachment questionnaires.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".