MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149877552 · doi:10.1080/14616730210157493

The dynamics of measuring attachment

2002· review· en· W2149877552 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

VenueAttachment & Human Development · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAttachment theoryAttachment measuresUnconscious mindDevelopmental psychologyDynamics (music)Social psychologyCognitive psychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comments on the paper by P. R. Shaver and M. Mikulciner (see record 2002-08087-002) about research and assessment related to the psychodynamics of adult attachment. The current authors specifically address the adult attachment interview (AAI) compared with self-report methods in measuring the dynamics of attachment. They noted the benefits of the AAI, but are also persuaded by Shaver and Mikulciner's article that self-reports of adult attachment are predictive of attachment-related dynamic processes. It is suggested that the joint use of self-reports and interviews would provide a useful way to further the study of attachment dynamics.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.313 · 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