A call to represent the current diversity of family forms in attachment research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As family forms become increasingly diverse, their underrepresentation in attachment research is glaring. Although attachment theory aims to explain the influence of early relationships, studies have disproportionately focused on mothers. Even when other attachment figures are considered, the research is typically limited to fathers in biparental mother-father families. In this piece, we report on the wide variety of family configurations worldwide, and how children experience care from multiple attachment figures. Drawing from the Child Attachment Studies Catalogue and Data Exchange (CASCADE), we assess the current state of attachment research with regard to diverse family configurations. Out of the available records in CASCADE, only four of 2,320 studies (0.2% of available studies) involved samples of diverse families. We conclude by issuing an explicit call for research that acknowledges and explores diverse family forms and propose strategies to improve reporting and research practices to promote more inclusivity of diverse family forms.
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 | 0.382 | 0.333 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.056 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".