Measuring what counts: Development of a new four‐category measure of adult attachment
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Measurement issues have plagued attachment research over the past 30 years. Concerns range from limitations of the original paragraph measure (C. Hazan & P. R. Shaver, 1987), low reliability of continuous scales of Bartholomew's 4‐category measure, limited interpretation of the 2 dimensions of the Experience of Close Relationships and the Experience of Close Relationships‐Revised ( ECR / ECR ‐R; K. A. Brennan, C. L. Clark, & P. R. Shaver, 1998; R. C. Fraley, N. G. Waller, & K. A. Brennan, 2000), and time‐consuming coding of attachment interviews. In this article, a revision of the Relationship Scales Questionnaire ( RSQ ) is introduced. The new 4‐category scales were found to have improved internal consistency when compared with the original RSQ scales as well as moderate to high test–retest reliability and good construct validity, thereby providing an alternative measure for researchers who are interested in assessing the effects of the 4‐category model of attachment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it