MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7017251913

Attachment and delinquency among First Nations adolescents from a remote geographic location

2000· dissertation· en· W7017251913 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2000
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenile delinquencyInsecure attachmentAttachment theoryPsychological distressDistressEmotional securityHuman factors and ergonomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attachment theories emphasize the importance of a secure attachment at all stages in life. In secure attachment relationships, individuals are confident that during times of real or perceived distress they can rely on the attachment figure to provide desired security. Conversely, individuals with insecure attachments feel they cannot rely on their attachment figures and thus will not be comforted in times of need. Lack of secure attachments can lead to psychological and behavioral difficulties. In the present study, maternal and peer attachments were investigated and related to levels of self-reported delinquency among 84 First Nations adolescent students, ages 11 to 17 from a reserve in a remote geographic location. The results from the present study appear to be congruent with the literature which reports that insecure attachments in youths lead to higher rates of delinquent behaviors. High levels of secure attachments in the participants resulted in low levels of reported delinquency, however the relationship between attachment and delinquency in adolescent participants was found to be dependent on the grade in school and gender interaction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics→French-language works237,207→