MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130365774 · doi:10.1177/0165025410370790

The reciprocal relation between children’s attachment representations and their cognitive ability

2010· article· en· W2130365774 on OpenAlex
Marie Stiévenart, Isabelle Roskam, Jean Christophe Meunier, Gaëlle Van de Moortele

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

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyReciprocalDevelopmental psychologyCognitionCognitive developmentWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleWechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of IntelligenceIntelligence quotientCognitive psychologyWechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores reciprocal relations between children’s attachment representations and their cognitive ability. Previous literature has mainly focused on the prediction of cognitive abilities from attachment, rarely on the reverse prediction. This was explored in the current research. Attachment representations were assessed with the Attachment Story Completion Task (Bretherton, Ridgeway, & Cassidy, 1990); the IQ was measured with the WPPSI-III (Wechsler, 2004). Data were collected twice, at a two-year interval, from about 400 preschoolers. Reasoning IQ was found to influence the development of secure attachment representations, while attachment security and disorganization influenced later verbal IQ. The implications of the findings for both clinical and research purposes are discussed in the light of the interactions between cognitive abilities and attachment representations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.389 · 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