Intercountry Adoption as a Migratory Practice: A Comparative Analysis of Intercountry Adoption and Immigration Policy and Practice in the United States, Canada and New Zealand in the Post W.W. II Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United States immigration and intercountry adoption policies and practice are compared with those of Canada and New Zealand. In the post World War II period, both the United States and Canada have been significant as receiving countries for intercountry adoptees, while New Zealand has proportionately been one of the least significant receiving countries in the West. Intercountry adoptions were addressed in legislation and incorporated into immigration criteria and procedures in the immediate post war period in response to the displaced children of Europe. The early immigration legislation for the migration of children for adoption tended to be reactive and temporary. By the 1970s, there was an increased demand for intercountry adoption, and permanent provisions were established in immigration legislation and criteria. Despite the endorsement of this practice through immigration policy, no national policy corollary that addressed the welfare of these children emerged in the United States or Canada. In contrast, in New Zealand, immigration policy and criteria has been shaped by a national policy on intercountry adoption as a practice since the 1960s. This article traces the development of immigration policy and intercountry adoption policy and practice in all three countries. It is argued that ultimately, with respect to policy priorities and practice, all three countries have prioritized national needs and well being over the ‘needs and welfare’ of child migrants for adoption.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".