The “Parentification” Phenomenon as Applied to Adolescents Living Through Parental Military Deployments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many children and adolescents care for their family members in some form during their childhoods, but some take on adult roles and responsibilities beyond what is considered to be developmentally appropriate – a situation known in academic and clinical literature as parentification. Much of the literature on parentification comes from the disciplines of psychology and social work, and focuses on what are perceived to be “normal” or “abnormal” child development trajectories. The psychological literature mostly stresses the negative developmental processes that result from youth being prematurely and/or inappropriately exposed to adult roles and responsibilities. In this paper, we consider the impact of parental deployments on the lives of adolescents growing up in military families on/near a large army base in Canada. We use data from 61 semi-structured interviews conducted in 2009/10—part of a larger mixed methods research project—to assess the adolescents’ experiences of parental deployments in light of the concept of parentification. We depart from previous literature by taking a sociological approach, which shows that while adolescents take on more adult roles during parental deployments, the impact of this situation upon them varies according to their gender, their relationship with their undeployed parent, and their perception of the support they receive from their school. For the most part, adolescents whose parents are deployed experience significant quality of life losses. However, this is not true for every adolescent, and the impact of each loss depends upon the social context in which it occurs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".