What about the child's tie to the father? A new insight into fathering, father–child attachment, children's socio-emotional development and the activation relationship theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The broad aim of this study on father–child attachment was to verify whether the Risky Situation (RS) procedure is a more valid means than the Strange Situation (SS) procedure of predicting children's socio-emotional development, and to evaluate the moderator effect of day-to-day involvement on attachment and activation. Participants were 53 father–child dyads. The RS and the SS were conducted when children were 12–18 months old to measure attachment and activation, and a questionnaire on fathering was administered at the same time. Childcare workers rated children's socio-emotional development at 30–36 months. Regression analyses revealed that the RS predicted children's socio-emotional development, while the SS did not, even when controlling for paternal involvement. This study advances the field by empirically testing the predictive relationships from attachment and activation to social emotional outcomes, and the moderator effect of fathering. The results underscore the value of the activation relationship theory and the RS procedure as a means for comprehending and capturing the essence of father–child attachment.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".