Association between parental alexithymic traits and self-reported postnatal reflective functioning in a birth cohort population Findings from the FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental reflective functioning (PRF) refers to a parent's effort to see his/her child as a separate individual person from early on, and to be curious of the child's own thoughts and feelings. Parenting abilities are affected by the parent's emotion regulation and emotional availability. Alexithymia as a personality construct with emotional deficits and poor imagination could potentially affect also PRF, but studies on parental alexithymia are still scarce. The aim of the present study was to examine the association between parental alexithymic traits and PRF, which to date has not been explored. As most of the parenting research concern only mothers, an additional aim was to study also fathers. The 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the 14-item Parental Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (PRFQ-Fi) were filled by 1882 mothers and 994 fathers at six months postpartum as part of the FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study. A significant negative association between TAS-20 total score and PRFQ-Fi total score among both genders was found. The main alexithymia dimension responsible for this association was Externally Oriented Thinking. The results suggest that alexithymic traits indeed are related to parental reflective functioning, but more studies are needed to explore the direction of this relation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".