MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971623777 · doi:10.65030/idr.02013

Childhood Attachment and Adolescent Suicide: A Stepwise Discriminant Analysis in a Case-Comparison Study

2004· article· en· W2971623777 on OpenAlexaff
Claudio Violato, Juliette Arato

Bibliographic record

VenueIndividual Differences Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLinear discriminant analysisPoison controlDevelopmental psychologyMedicineMedical emergencyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined whether early attachment histories differentiated between suicidal and nonsuicidal adolescents. Employing a case-comparison design, community, nonsuicidal adolescents (comparison group; n = 35; mean age = 14.2, SD = 1.9) were compared to clinical adolescents (case group; n = 17; mean age = 15.8, SD = 1.01) on their attachment and developmental histories. Participants were recruited from an inpatient psychiatric assessment and treatment unit for adolescents at a major university hospital or the community. All participants were administered the Youth Self Report, Parental Bonding Instrument and the Adolescent Attachment Survey. A stepwise discriminant analyses resulted in a single function (Wilk's Lambda = .235, p<.001) discriminating between the suicidal and nonsuicidal adolescents on attachment variables (canonical r = .88), particularly attachment to mother (Cohen's d = 3.0). The discriminant function resulted in an overall correct classification rate of 94.23% between the case and comparison groups. Insecure attachment (especially to mother) in childhood, particularly affectionless control and lack of care, is related to suicidality in adolescence.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations33
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndividual Differences ResearchSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207