MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391847728 · doi:10.1007/s10578-023-01662-2

Parent–Youth Attachment Insecurity and Informant Discrepancies of Intrafamilial Aggression

2024· article· en· W4391847728 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily M. Thornton, Sebastian P. Dys, Carlos Sierra Hernandez, Ryan J. Smith, Marlene M. Moretti

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Psychiatry & Human Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsAggressionPsychologyAnxietyAssociation (psychology)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated how youth attachment anxiety and avoidance are associated with informant discrepancies of intrafamilial aggression within families where youth have clinically significant mental health challenges (N = 510 youth-parent dyads). Using polynomial regressions, we tested whether youth attachment avoidance and anxiety moderated the absolute magnitude of the association between youth- and parent-reports of aggression toward each other. Furthermore, difference scores were computed to test whether youth attachment was associated with the direction of youths' reports of the frequency of aggression relative to parents (i.e., did youth under- or over-report). Dyads' reports of youth-to-parent aggression were more strongly related at high than low levels of attachment anxiety. Results also revealed that youth attachment anxiety was associated with youth over-reporting of youth-to-parent and parent-to-youth aggression (relative to parents), whereas attachment avoidance was associated with youth over-reporting parent-to-youth aggression (relative to parents). These findings highlight the importance of understanding the source of informant discrepancies in social-emotional development and family functioning.

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 score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Psychiatry & Human DevelopmentSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207