MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082901463 · doi:10.1111/jmft.12453

Couple Adaptation to the Birth of a Child: The Roles of Attachment and Perfectionism

2020· article· en· W3082901463 on OpenAlexaff
Anne‐Sophie Gingras, Isabelle Lessard, Frédéric Mallette, Audrey Brassard, Audrey Bernier‐Jarry, Patrick Gosselin, Catherine de Pierrepont

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marital and Family Therapy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerfectionism (psychology)PsychologyAllianceAttachment theoryAnxietyPsychological interventionDevelopmental psychologyAdaptation (eye)Clinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to examine two explanatory factors of relationship satisfaction and parental alliance among both parents of a new child, namely romantic attachment and perfectionism. A sample of 80 couples completed individual online questionnaires. Path analyses based on the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model were carried out to explore the actor and partner effects of each explanatory variable (attachment, perfectionism) on both partners' postnatal relationship satisfaction and parental alliance. Results revealed that attachment avoidance is negatively related to each partner's own relationship satisfaction and parental alliance, whereas attachment anxiety is related to their own lower parental alliance. Maladaptive perfectionism is negatively related to each partner's own relationship satisfaction, whereas adaptive perfectionism is positively related to each partner's own relationship satisfaction. These results extend the understanding of the factors contributing to parental and couple adaptation in the postnatal period. They highlight the role of attachment and perfectionism for improving postnatal professionals' interventions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marital and Family TherapySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207