Preoccupied but not dismissing attachment states of mind are associated with nonsuicidal self-injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this investigation the factor structure of the Adult Attachment Interview was studied in a partially at-risk sample of 120 young adults. More specifically, 60 participants had engaged in nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI; 53 females, M age = 20.38 years), and 60 were non-self-injuring controls matched by age and sex. Theoretically anticipated differential associations between preoccupied (but not dismissing) states of mind and NSSI were then examined. Exploratory factor analyses identified evidence for two weakly correlated state of mind dimensions (i.e., dismissing and preoccupied) consistently identified in factor analyses of normative-risk samples. As hypothesized, results further showed that preoccupied (but not dismissing) states of mind were associated with NSSI behavior. Findings support existing arguments suggesting that the regulatory strategy adults adopt when discussing attachment-related experiences with primary caregivers, particularly passive, angry, or unresolved discourse patterns, is uniquely correlated with NSSI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".