Externalizing behaviors and attachment disorganization in children of different‐sex separated parents: The protective role of joint physical custody
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between externalizing behaviors and the quality of attachment representations in preschool children, and to determine if family type and custody arrangement had a moderating effect on this relationship. The participants were 33 girls and 31 boys (n = 64) aged between three and six years (M = 4.75; SD = 0.87 years) and their mothers. Among them, 36 came from "intact" families, 13 were living mainly with their mothers and 15 were in joint physical custody. Children's attachment representations were assessed with the Attachment Story Completion Task (Bretherton, Ridgeway & Cassidy, 1990). Mothers reported on their child's behavior problems using the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) and on their alliance with the father using the Parenting Alliance Inventory (Abidin & Brunner, 1995). Although children's externalizing behaviors were found to be associated with the disorganization of their attachment representations, this relationship was significantly weaker and was non-significant for children in joint physical custody. Thus, the results of this pilot study suggest that joint custody may protect children of separated parents from the effects of attachment disorganization on externalizing behaviors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".