MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Attachment security and parental bonding in adults with obsessive‐compulsive disorder: a comparison with depressed out‐patients and healthy controls

2004· article· en· W2061176317 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

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathologyObsessive compulsiveAttachment theoryPsychologyDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyInsecure attachmentPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study examines concurrent associations of attachment security, psychopathology and recollections of early parental interactions, in adults with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), depression, and in healthy controls. METHOD: Thirty-six out-patients with OCD, 16 depressed out-patients and 26 controls were asked to fill out the Revised Adult Attachment Scale and the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI). RESULTS: OCD and depressed groups were more insecure than controls. The depressed group recalled less caring mothers than the OCD group, while the OCD group was indistinguishable from controls on PBI measures. Married status was associated with greater security, but also with recollections of greater parental control, and lower maternal care. CONCLUSION: OCD and depressed groups demonstrated greater attachment insecurity than controls. No clear relationship emerged between security and PBI recollections. The PBI may not measure aspects of early interactions essential for later attachment security, or recollections may be biased according to diagnosis or attachment style.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.319 · 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