A longitudinal study of service use in families of children adopted from Romanian orphanages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-adoption service use and unmet service needs were examined longitudinally in three matched groups of children: children adopted from Romanian orphanages following a minimum of eight months' institutional experience (RO: n = 36); children from Romania who were destined for orphanages but were adopted early in infancy (EA: n = 25); and Canadian born non-adopted children (CB: n = 42). Data were collected when the adoptees had been in their adoptive homes for 11 months, at age 4.5 years and 10.5 years. Results indicated higher rates of service use and unmet service needs across time in the RO group. Unmet service needs in the RO group may be due in part to the unique challenges faced by post-institutionalized adoptees. Service use in the EA group jumped significantly at Phase 3, suggesting that the impact of their lesser degree of early deprivation was seen later in development under the additional challenge and stress of the demands of school. Findings, particularly from the EA group, supported the suggestion that adoptive parents have a lower threshold for referring their children for clinical services than do non-adoptive parents. Service needs of adoptees changed over time and those with unmet needs experienced greater challenges than those whose service needs were met.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".