MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296794134 · doi:10.1111/bjdp.12433

Differential effects of maternal‐ and paternal‐adolescent attachments on friendship security and intimacy

2022· article· en· W4296794134 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ryan J. Persram, Chiaki Konishi

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Developmental Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFriendshipPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyAnxietySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the differential contributions of adolescent-reported maternal and paternal attachment anxiety and avoidance on friendship security and intimacy. Participants were 776 Canadian adolescents between the ages of 13 and 19 years (M = 15.18, SD = 1.58) who provided ratings of their perceived attachment avoidance and anxiety towards their mothers and fathers and responded to measures of friendship security and intimacy. Findings showed that maternal and paternal attachment avoidance and not anxiety negatively predicted friendship security. Moreover, maternal attachment avoidance was negatively associated with friendship intimacy. Multigroup analyses showed that security was negatively predicted by maternal anxious attachment for junior high school boys and girls. Additionally, paternal avoidant attachment was negatively associated with friendship intimacy for junior high school boys and girls. These findings highlight the unique effects associated with maternal and paternal attachment on specific friendship features and underscore the importance of the role of fathers 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)0.001
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Developmental PsychologySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207