MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074376014 · doi:10.1080/14616730410001663489

Relations between young children's responses to the depiction of separation and pain experiences

2004· article· en· W2074376014 on OpenAlexaff
Trudi M. Walsh, Douglas K. Symons, Patrick J. McGrath

Bibliographic record

VenueAttachment & Human Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyDepictionFeelingConstruct (python library)Separation (statistics)DistressAnxietySocial psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined relations between young children's representations of separation and pain experiences in 60, 4- and 5-year-old children. Separation representations were assessed with the Separation Anxiety Test (SAT) and pain representations were assessed by examining responses to pictures of children about to experience pain in the presence of parent figures. Results showed that representations of separation and pain experience were systematically related and the patterns were not accounted for by the child's ability to differentiate emotional states, language ability, or reports of emotional regulation. These findings are consistent with Bowlby's (1982) concept of secure base behaviour in response to a variety of distress, and support the hypothetical construct of an internal working model of attachment which organizes children's behaviours, thoughts, and feelings in response to both separation experience and painful events.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations30
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAttachment & Human DevelopmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207