MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157259789 · doi:10.1017/s0954579403000415

The impact of institutionalization on child development

2003· article· en· W2157259789 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kim MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment and Psychopathology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionalisationPsychologyRomanianDevelopmental psychologyPsychopathologyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past 10 years researchers studying children adopted from Romanian orphanages have had the opportunity to revisit developmental questions regarding the impact of early deprivation on child development. In the present paper the effects of deprivation are examined by reviewing both the early and more recent literature on studies of children who spent the first few years of life in institutions. Special attention is given to the Canadian study of Romanian adoptees in which the author has been involved. Findings across time and studies are consistent in showing the negative impact of institutionalization on all aspects of children's development (intellectual, physical, behavioral, and social emotional). Results of studies show, however, that institutionalization, although a risk factor for less optimal development, does not doom a child to psychopathology. However, the impact of institutionalization is greater when coupled with risk factors in the postinstitutional environment. Methodological and conceptual difficulties in research with institutionalized samples of children are discussed and future directions for research are considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations407
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment and PsychopathologySame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207