Early child–parent attachment and peer relations: A meta-analysis of recent research.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A central tenet of Bowlby's attachment theory is that early child-caregiver attachment is reflected in the quality of the child's interpersonal relationships throughout life. Schneider, Atkinson, and Tardif (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of studies conducted up to 1998 to corroborate that contention. They found a significant but small to moderate effect size (r = .20). Their finding that studies of friendship bonds had higher effect sizes than studies of other interpersonal relationships has important theoretical ramifications. The present brief report is a meta-analysis that covers research conducted for the same purpose since 1998. The sample consists of 44 studies with a total of 8505 participants. The overall effect size r of .19 (adjusted r = .12; 95% confidence interval, .08-.17) in the current study was similar in magnitude to the effect size reported in the 2001 meta-analysis, documenting consistency in the predictive power of attachment theory. However, we failed to replicate the moderating effect of friendship. One possible explanation for these findings is that the friendships of school-age children and adolescents no longer invoke very high levels of intimacy. Effect sizes are higher in studies conducted outside North America than in U.S.--and Canada-based studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it