MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Brief Accessibility, Responsiveness, and Engagement (<scp>BARE</scp>) Scale: A Tool for Measuring Attachment Behavior in Couple Relationships

2012· article· en· W2129230739 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

VenueFamily Process · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyScale (ratio)Attachment theoryTest (biology)Measure (data warehouse)PsychometricsApplied psychologySocial psychologyClinical psychologyComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the purpose, reliability, validity, and potential clinical applications of the brief accessibility, responsiveness, and engagement (BARE) scale. In addition to focusing on the central attachment behaviors of accessibility and responsiveness, this instrument highlights the key role of engagement in couple bonding. The BARE is a short, systemic, self-report measure of attachment behaviors in couple relationships. Both classical testing theory and item response theory were used to test the psychometric properties of the instrument. The BARE demonstrated appropriate reliability and validity while maintaining its brevity and potential usefulness for clinicians and researchers. The BARE also accurately predicted the key relationship outcomes of stability and satisfaction. The data for this study were collected from the RELATE assessment (see www.relate-institute.org).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.311 · 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