MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Attachment Style With Mother, Father, Best Friend, and Romantic Partner During Adolescence

2009· article· en· W2123626390 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna Beth Doyle, Heather L. Lawford, Dorothy Markiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research on Adolescence · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyRomanceAttachment theoryDevelopmental psychologyStyle (visual arts)Strange situation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self‐reported attachment styles with mother, father, best friend, and romantic partner were assessed longitudinally across adolescence. Three cohorts (ages 13, 16, and 19 years; N=373) from a community sample were followed across 2 years. There was only one change in attachment styles with age: the oldest adolescents were more dismissive than the younger. Adolescents were more secure with mother than with father, and most dismissive and fearful with father. Boys were more dismissing than girls, who were more fearful with a romantic partner (n=158). Across time, attachment insecurity with father was associated with insecurity with a best friend. Attachment insecurity with a romantic partner was associated primarily with insecurity with friend, but changes over time tended to be associated with insecurity with mother. Results support the view of a differentiated hierarchy of attachment figures in adolescence, with the quality of parental attachment contributing to close extra‐familial 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.399 · 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

Citations135
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research on AdolescenceSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207