MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129296828 · doi:10.1111/cdev.12084

Is the Secure Base Phenomenon Evident Here, There, and Anywhere? A Cross-Cultural Study of Child Behavior and Experts’ Definitions

2013· article· en· W2129296828 on OpenAlexaff
Germán Posada, Ting Lu, Jill M. Trumbell, Garene Kaloustian, Marcel Trudel, Sandra Plata, Paola Peña, J. Carola Pérez, Susana Tereno, Romain Dugravier, Gabrielle Coppola, Alessandro Constantini, Rosalinda Cassibba, Kiyomi Kondo‐Ikemura, Magaly Nóblega, Ines M. Haya, Claudia Pedraglio, Manuela Veríssimo, António J. Santos, Lí­gia Monteiro, Keng‐Ling Lay

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyUniversality (dynamical systems)Naturalistic observationDevelopmental psychologyCross-culturalPhenomenonChild developmentSocial psychologySet (abstract data type)SociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolutionary rationale offered by Bowlby implies that secure base relationships are common in child-caregiver dyads and thus, child secure behavior observable across diverse social contexts and cultures. This study offers a test of the universality hypothesis. Trained observers in nine countries used the Attachment Q-set to describe the organization of children's behavior in naturalistic settings. Children (N = 547) were 10-72 months old. Child development experts (N = 81) from all countries provided definitions of optimal child secure base use. Findings indicate that children from all countries use their mother as a secure base. Children's organization of secure base behavior was modestly related to each other both within and across countries. Experts' descriptions of the optimally attached child were highly similar across cultures.

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)0.003
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 score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.370
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

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

Citations61
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207