MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Personal Strengths and Traumatic Experiences Among Institutionalized Children Given Up at Birth (Les Enfants de Duplessis???Duplessis??? Children)

2005· article· en· W2019247273 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Christopher Perry, John J. Sigal, Sophie Boucher, Nikolas Par, Marie Claude Ouimet, J Normand, Mélissa Henry

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionalisationNeuroticismAdverse Childhood ExperiencesPopulationPsychologyMedicinePediatricsPoison controlPsychiatryClinical psychologyPersonalityMental healthMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a companion article, we retrospectively examined the childhood strengths and adverse experiences of a group of orphans given up at or near birth and raised in Quebec institutions. This article examines the relationship of their early experiences to functioning and symptoms in later adulthood. The same follow-up interview of 81 adults (41 women, 40 men) at a mean age of 59.2 years included assessments of their current symptoms and functioning. The mean adult Social and Occupational Functioning Score (57.8; 95% CI, 54.7-61.0) indicated moderate difficulty. Psychiatric symptoms were significantly higher than in a matched population survey sample from Quebec. Mean overall defensive functioning indicated a neurotic (inhibited) level. Total trauma and childhood strengths predicted adult outcomes, but childhood strengths moderated the effects of trauma. Institutionalization of children--if unavoidable--must build in effective safeguards against adverse experiences, especially among children with few strengths, and foster children's strengths to avoid impaired adult outcomes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207