MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905772965 · doi:10.1080/14616734.2018.1557224

Adoptive gay fathers’ sensitivity and child attachment and behavior problems

2018· article· en· W2905772965 on OpenAlexafffund
Éric Alain Feugé, Chantal Cyr, Louise Cossette, Danielle Julien

Bibliographic record

VenueAttachment & Human Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyChild Behavior ChecklistMaternal sensitivityAttachment measuresStrange situationAttachment theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fathers' sensitivity and child attachment security and externalizing and internalizing problems were investigated among families headed by two adoptive gay fathers. A sample of 68 fathers and their 34 children aged 1-6 years participated in the study. Fathers completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and the Child Behavior Checklist. Parental sensitivity and child attachment security were assessed by independent coders with Q-sort methodology during parent-child interactions at home. Results indicate that few children had low attachment security scores and behavior problems in the clinical range. Fathers' sensitivity within parenting couples appeared similarly high, as did children's attachment security. In contrast to the weak association found in past studies among heterosexual fathers, a significant moderate correlation was found between paternal sensitivity and child attachment security. Also, children with higher levels of attachment security had less externalizing problems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAttachment & Human DevelopmentSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207