Uwarunkowania parentyfikacji doświadczanej w dzieciństwie i okresie dorastania z perspektywy młodych dorosłych
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parentification has also been known and studied as role reversal in family. Despite the fact that this concept entered scientific literature in the 1970’s, it has not received adequate attention and its causes and mechanisms have not been fully established. In Poland, parentification has been on the margins of psychological research and its prevalence, causes, and effects are unknown. Consequently, there is lack of practical guidelines for practitioners working with families in which role reversal might have taken place. The goal of this study is to gain insight into the prevalence, conditions, and types of parentification retrospectively reported by young adults reflecting on their family experiences in childhood and adolescence. The participants were 1045 students studying towards various teaching degrees at the University of Opole (Uniwersytet Opolski) and University of Szczecin (Uniwersytet Szczecinski). The results indicate that that parentification (or role reversal) correlates with selected sociodemographic variables, negative family life events, and with characteristics and patterns of behavior of the parents. Prevalence of parentification has also been revealed: over 70% of participants reported experiencing instrumental or emotional parentification whereas one fourth experienced a sense of injustice related to being parentified.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".