MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767455809 · doi:10.1111/cdev.12986

Peer Problems Among Postinstitutionalized, Internationally Adopted Children: Relations to Hypocortisolism, Parenting Quality, and ADHD Symptoms

2017· article· en· W2767455809 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Clio Pitula, Carrie E. DePasquale, Shanna B. Mliner, Megan R. Gunnar

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyEl NiñoClinical psychologyPediatricsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Seventy-eight postinstitutionalized (PI) children adopted at ages 17–36 months were assessed 2, 8, 16, and 24 months postadoption on measures of cortisol and parenting quality, and compared to same-aged children adopted from foster care (FC, n = 45) and nonadopted children (NA, n = 45). In kindergarten (Mage = 6.0 years), teachers, parents, and trained observers completed measures of peer relationships and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms. PI children had more peer problems and ADHD symptoms according to teachers and observers than NA children with FC children in between, whereas both PI and FC children were at significantly greater risk of hypocortisolism (i.e., blunted cortisol diurnal rhythm and reactivity). Hypocortisolism and ADHD symptoms mediated the association between preadoption adversity and peer difficulties. Higher postadoption parenting quality was protective.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations50
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207