MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161416823 · doi:10.1111/cdev.13592

Long-Term Effects of Institutional Care and Enhanced Attachment Relationships on Close Adolescent Friendships

2021· article· en· W3161416823 on OpenAlexafffund
Alva Tang, Alisa N. Almas, Selin Zeytinoglu, Charles H. Zeanah, Charles A. Nelson, Nathan A. Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthPalix FoundationJacobs FoundationBinder Family FoundationJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
KeywordsFoster carePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyFriendshipPsychological interventionFoster Home CareChild careClinical psychologySocial psychologySuicide preventionPoison controlMedicineNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined whether early institutional rearing and attachment security influence the quality and quantity of friendships at age 16 in 138 participants, including children abandoned to institutions in Bucharest, Romania, who were randomized to care as usual (n = 45, 26 female), or foster care (n = 47, 25 female), and a never-institutionalized group (n = 46, 18 female). Adolescents in the foster care group with secure attachment to their foster mothers at 42 months were comparable to never-institutionalized adolescents in having more friends and more positive behaviors with their friend during dyadic interactions, compared to the foster care group with insecure attachment and care as usual group. Interventions targeting early child-caregiver attachment relationships may help foster the ability to build positive friendships 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 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 score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207