MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2499776780 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511612695.010

Social motivation: attachment and altruism

2000· book-chapter· en· W2499776780 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2000
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAltruism (biology)PsychologyPerspective (graphical)Social psychologySubject (documents)Affect (linguistics)Developmental psychologyAttachment theoryCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ATTACHMENT ACTIVITIES Motivational influences that are specifically social constitute the subject of this chapter. Social motives involve activities that affect interactions among organisms of the same species as well as organisms of other species. I will deal with only two issues in this short chapter: the formation and maintenance of social bonds between individuals; and that of pro-social and altruistic acts. The functional and proximate causal aspects of these phenomena will be considered in the analysis. The first and foremost social motive concerns the formation of the bond between an infant and its primary caretaker, usually the mother. The material in Chapter 3 deals with this issue from the perspective of the mother, whilst the material in this chapter complements it through an analysis of processes in the infant. The attachment of a human infant to its caretaker has biological roots. Both babies and adults are programmed by evolution to become attached in certain ways because the former is dependent upon the latter for survival. Attachment behaviours refer to a broad classification of behaviours that keep the infant in close proximity to an attachment figure. These behaviours include crying, clinging and approaching, as well as others produced when the infant is separated from the attachment figure. Mammals live in a diverse array of habitats and social structures. The basic unit of the family is the mother and infant. However, our examination of material in Chapter 3 suggests that other conspecifics may be involved to some exent in infant caregiving. These caregivers can include the father, siblings or peers, or combinations of these conspecifics.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics→French-language works237,207→