MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059233680 · doi:10.1177/0165025410396766

More bridges: Investigating the relevance of self-report and interview measures of adult attachment for marital and caregiving relationships

2011· article· en· W2059233680 on OpenAlexafffund
Annie Bernier, Célia Matte‐Gagné

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersHealth Research Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyAttachment theoryAttachment measuresDevelopmental psychologyRomanceFeelingRelevance (law)Maternal sensitivitySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this report was to investigate the associations between attachment state of mind, romantic attachment style, and indices of maternal functioning in two relational spheres: the mother—child relationship (i.e., maternal sensitivity and child attachment security) and the marital relationship (i.e., mothers’ and their partners’ marital satisfaction). The results, based on 59 families, indicated that attachment state of mind was associated with maternal sensitivity and with child attachment security, although not to mothers’ or their partners’ subjective feelings of marital satisfaction. In contrast, romantic attachment styles were related to both mothers’ and their partners’ marital satisfaction, although not to maternal sensitivity or child attachment. These findings add to the growing literature highlighting the unique value of each tradition of assessment in adult attachment research, by suggesting that variation in attachment security tapped by each measure may bear particular relevance for specific relationships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207