Mitigating effects of the adoptive caregiving environment on inattention/overactivity in children adopted from Romanian orphanages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined inattention/overactivity (I/O) over time and in relation to caregiving in three matched groups: (1) Romanian Orphans (RO) with a minimum of eight months’ deprivation prior to adoption, (2) Early Adopted (EA) children adopted from Romania prior to age four months, and (3) Canadian Born (CB) non-adopted children. Comparisons among groups at 4.5, 10.5, and 17 years of age revealed significantly greater I/O in the Romanian Orphan than Canadian Born group at all ages, and greater than the Early Adopted group at ages 4.5 and 10.5. Canadian Born and Early Adopted groups did not differ. Rates of borderline clinical I/O among Romanian Orphans were significantly higher than rates found in the general population; Canadian Born and Early Adopted groups did not differ from the general population. Among Romanian Orphans, I/O was positively related to duration of deprivation; this association did not attenuate over time. Regressions indicated that I/O at age 10.5 was negatively related to warmth and stimulation in the adoptive home and attachment, after accounting for duration of deprivation and age 4.5 I/O. Authoritarian parenting was positively predictive of I/O in children with minimal deprivation and negatively predictive in children with extensive deprivation. Attachment was negatively predictive of I/O in children with less than 19 months’ deprivation but unrelated to I/O in those with more than 19 months’ deprivation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".