MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009135945 · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.5.773

Stability of Attachment During the Preschool Period.

2005· article· en· W2009135945 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ellen Moss, Chantal Cyr, Jean‐François Bureau, George M. Tarabulsy, Karine Dubois‐Comtois

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocioeconomic statusDevelopmental psychologyStrange situationMarital statusDemographyAttachment theoryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children's attachment patterns at early preschool age and 2 years later as well as factors related to stability-instability were examined in a diverse socioeconomic status French Canadian sample of 120 children. Attachment was assessed during 2 laboratory visits using separation-reunion procedures when the children were approximately 3.5 (J. Cassidy & R. S. Marvin, 1992) and 5.5 (M. Main & J. Cassidy, 1988) years old. Overall, stability of attachment, based on 4-way classification, was moderate (68%, k = .47, p = .01). Change from security to disorganization was associated with the most dramatic decline in interactive quality with mother, lowest marital satisfaction, and greatest likelihood of severe attachment-related family events, namely, loss and parental hospitalization. Families of children who changed from security to organized insecurity presented levels of caregiving and marital dissatisfaction that fell between those of stable secure children and secure children who changed toward disorganization.

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)0.002
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 score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations163
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychologySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207