MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000149957 · doi:10.1080/14616730802461441

Beyond the dyad: do family interactions influence children's attachment representations in middle childhood?

2008· article· en· W2000149957 on OpenAlexaff
Karine Dubois‐Comtois, Ellen Moss

Bibliographic record

VenueAttachment & Human Development · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDyadDevelopmental psychologyAttachment theorySocial relationAttachment measuresSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the influence of mother-child and family interactions on the development of child attachment representations in middle childhood for a sample of 49 families. Mother-child interactions were observed during a snacktime in a lab setting (Moss, Rousseau, Parent, St-Laurent, & Saintonge, 1998) when children were 5-6 years old. Three years later, children's attachment representations were assessed using a doll play narrative procedure (Solomon, George, & DeJong, 1995) in the lab setting. Within 6 months of the second lab visit, family interactions were filmed during mealtime and coded using the Mealtime Interaction Coding System (MICS; Dickstein, Hayden, Schiller, Seifer, & San Antonio, 1994). Results showed clear differences between attachment groups on quality of mother-child and family interaction with the secure/confident group showing highest and the disorganized/frightened group showing lowest quality interactions. Family interactions predicted children's attachment representations, after controlling variance explained by prior mother-child interactions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations57
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAttachment & Human DevelopmentSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207