Behavioural precursors of attachment representations in middle childhood and links with child social adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concordance between age-6 attachment behaviour and age-8 doll play attachment representations during the school-age period, and associations between these measures and child social adaptation at school were examined. One hundred and twenty-nine 6-year-olds and their mothers participated in a separation/reunion protocol. Two years later, 104 children completed a doll play narrative task. Teachers evaluated child behaviour problems and prosocial behaviour at both ages. Results showed a significant four-way concordance between age-6 attachment behaviour and age-8 doll play classifications. Each of the four attachment classifications was concordant in the absence of major negative life-events, but only the disorganized classifications remained concordant when at least one negative life-event occurred between the two assessment times. Children with a disorganized attachment classification or representation had higher externalizing scores than secure and avoidant children at both timepoints. Finally, the avoidant and disorganized behavioural classifications predicted avoidant and disorganized representations, respectively, even when controlling for age-6 teacher reports of social adaptation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".