MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ASSESSING THE PARENT–CHILD RELATIONSHIP IN PARENTING CAPACITY EVALUATIONS: CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF ATTACHMENT RESEARCH

2007· article· en· W2018036763 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Court Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentreLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lack of an articulated model of parenting competence and the limited use of empirically based assessment procedures is a weakness of current parenting capacity assessment protocols. The current article attempts to address this issue through the application of attachment theory and research in assessing one of the most critical components of parenting capacity assessments: the parent–child relationship. New empirically and attachment‐based assessment tools and procedures, well suited for the assessment of parental fitness, are presented, along with recommended practice guidelines to enhance the assessment of the parent–child relationship in cases of young, maltreated children (under 6 years of age).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.487
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.106 · 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