Impact of Inuit customary adoption on behavioral problems in school-age Inuit children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large proportion of Inuit children in Arctic Quebec are adopted in accordance with traditional Inuit customs. In contrast to adoptions in Southern Canada and the United States, the child is adopted at birth and by a close family member; he or she knows who his or her biological parents are, and will typically have contact with them. Studies of other populations have reported an increased incidence of behavior problems in adopted compared with nonadopted children. This study examined the actual extent of the increase in the number of behavior problems seen in Inuit children adopted in accordance with traditional customs. In a prospective longitudinal study conducted in the Canadian Arctic (n = 46 adopted and 231 nonadopted children), prenatal and familial variables were documented at birth and at school age (M = 11.3 years). Behavior problems were assessed on the Teacher Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist. Adopted children lived in more economically disadvantaged families, but their caregivers were less prone to depression, domestic violence, or alcohol abuse compared with those of the nonadopted children. The adoption status was not related to the teacher's report of attention problems, externalizing or internalizing behaviors, after controlling for confounders. Despite less favorable socioeconomic circumstances, a higher extent of behavioral problems was not seen at school age in Inuit children adopted at birth by a family member. Psychosocial stressors associated with adoption are more likely to be responsible for an association with higher levels of childhood behavior problems rather than adoption per se.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".