Profiles of Parental Burnout Around the Globe: Similarities and Differences Across 36 Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental burnout (PB) is a pervasive phenomenon. Parenting is embedded in cultural values, and previous research has shown the role of individualism in PB. In this paper, we reanalyze previously collected data to identify profiles based on the four dimensions of PB, and explore whether these profiles vary across countries' levels of collectivistic-individualistic (COL-IND) values. Our sample comprised 16,885 individuals from 36 countries (73% women; 27% men), and we used a latent profile approach to uncover PB profiles. The findings showed five profiles: Fulfilled, Not in PB, Low risk of PB, High risk of PB and Burned out. The profiles pointed to climbing levels of PB in the total sample and in each of the three country groups (High COL/Low IND, Medium COL-IND, Low COL/High IND). Exploratory analyses revealed that distinct dimensions of PB had the most prominent roles in the climbing pattern, depending on the countries' levels of COL/IND. In particular, we found contrast to be a hallmark dimension and an indicator of severe burnout for individualistic countries. Contrary to our predictions, emotional distance and saturation did not allow a clear differentiation across collectivistic countries. Our findings support several research avenues regarding PB measurement and intervention.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".