L'organisation cognitive du système d'attachement des adolescents et leurs perceptions de l'encadrement dyadique en tutorat.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine les liens entre l'organisation cognitive du systeme d'attachement des adolescents et leurs perceptions de l'encadrement dyadique en tutorat. Quatre-vingt-dix-huit etudiants inscrits a un programme volontaire de tutorat ont rempli, a la fin du programme, l'Entrevue sur l'attachement a l'âge adulte (EAA) et des mesures evaluant leurs perceptions de securite et de controle dans la relation avec le tuteur-enseignant. Les perceptions d'efficacite du tutorat ont egalement ete evaluees a la fin du programme et 4 mois plus tard. Les resultats indiquent que les tendances d'attachement preoccupe et esquivant sont toutes deux associees a des perceptions negatives de l'encadrement en tutorat. Certaines de ces relations sont cependant moderees par l'appariement des sexes dans les dyades maitre-etudiant. Ces resultats sont discutes a la lumiere des premisses de la theorie de l'attachement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".