MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382540398 · doi:10.1177/00220221231176788

Fatherhood and Child–Father Attachment in Two Small-Scale Societies

2023· article· en· W4382540398 on OpenAlexaff
Tanya Broesch, Christopher von Rueden, Kim Yurkowski, Hannah Quinn, Sarah Alami, Helen Davis, Brandi Stupica, Johnny Tarry Nimau, Jean‐François Bureau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaSimon Fraser University
FundersJacobs Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyAttachment measuresScale (ratio)Attachment theoryAmbivalenceInsecure attachmentDemographySocial psychologyGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variation in attachment quality was assessed in 92 one- to three-year-olds’ (49 female, 43 male) attachment to their father, within and across two small-scale, subsistence populations: the Tsimane of lowland Bolivia ( n = 29 dyads) and Tannese of Vanuatu ( n = 63 dyads). Overall, the Tsimane and Tannese populations show similarity in the patterning of child–father attachment relative to samples from industrialized societies, with 52% of Tsimane dyads and 62% of Tannese dyads showing secure attachment. However, the insecure-ambivalent attachment was more frequent among Tsimane and Tannese dyads relative to samples from industrialized societies, and attachment security was greater for sons than for daughters in Tanna. Of several attributes of fathers, only reports by mothers of how frequently fathers play with their children are associated with child–father secure attachment. Fathers who scored highly on this measure were more likely to have children with secure attachments. Studies of child–father attachment are rare outside of industrialized populations yet are critical to understanding the mechanisms underlying child–father relationships.

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)0.001
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.400 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cross-Cultural PsychologySame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207