Parenting during a child's placement: A systemic perspective on parental commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study aims to document birth parents' commitment from a systemic perspective. Characteristics of birth parent's mental health (depressive symptoms), placement characteristics (family reunification, parent–child contact), and systemic characteristics (parent's perception of the foster parent's opinion on parent–child contact) are examined. Background Foster placement creates a highly vulnerable situation within families of origin. Moreover, birth parents are liable to have been exposed to multiple risk factors. Foster placement comes with many challenges that are not without consequences on the parenting experience, including loss of parenting responsibilities and redefinition of the parenting role. Method Parents ( n = 59) participated for 70 parent–child dyads in 90‐minute home visits where data on sociodemographic characteristics, mental health status, experience of the placement measure and parent–child contact, as well as level of parental commitment were gathered. Results Three‐step hierarchical regression models were used to examine the independent contribution of the parent's perception of the foster parent's opinion on contact on parental commitment after accounting for the birth parent's mental health and placement characteristics. Results suggest that parent–child contact and parent's perception of foster parent's opinion on contact have a significant contribution to parental commitment. Conclusion These findings underscore the importance of addressing parenthood in placement situations and the relevance of examining parental commitment from a systemic perspective. Implications A deeper understanding of this vulnerable population would require reflecting on the psychosocial practices in Child Protective Services while accounting for the needs of birth parents in the placement system.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".