MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996469264 · doi:10.1177/0265407509354402

Investigating a four-pathway model of adult attachment orientation and health

2009· article· en· W1996469264 on OpenAlexaff
Stanley W. Sadava, Michael A. Busseri, Danielle S. Molnar, Colin P. K. Perrier, Nancy DeCourville

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social and Personal Relationships · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttachment theoryPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Affect regulationInsecure attachmentDevelopmental psychologyAnxietyStructural equation modelingSocial supportOrientation (vector space)Social psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested a model, derived from attachment theory, linking adult attachment orientation to health through four hypothesized intervening paths: affect, stress, social support, and health-risk behavior. Questionnaires were administered to 623 university students and 219 addiction treatment clients. In both samples, attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety dimensions were indirectly, rather than directly, related to lower subjective ratings of health. In both samples, data were consistent with the affect and stress pathways linking attachment to health. Results for the social support and health-risk behavior pathways were less robust. Results were consistent for male and female respondents. Findings are discussed in terms of attachment theory and the affect regulation processes linking attachment and health. Implications are considered, along with directions for future research.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social and Personal RelationshipsSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207