La aplicación de la adopción abierta en España. Una visión en cifras y algo más
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Han trascurrido dos años desde la implementación de la adopción abierta en España. Por ello, es necesario una primera aproximación para saber cómo se está aplicando en las diferentes Comunidades Autónomas que integran el territorio español. Los resultados no son muy halagüeños para esta nueva institución de adopción abierta pero sí son esperanzadores, pues poco a poco se va abriendo el interés en esta nueva vía de protección de los menores en España, siguiendo la estela de otros países (Estados Unidos de América, Gran Bretaña, Austria, Canadá o Nueva Zelanda) donde sí está dando muy buenos resultados. Quizás requiramos un cambio de mentalidad hacia la adopción abierta. El interés superior del niño ha de primar en todas las instituciones de protección y, si salvaguardar algunas de las relaciones con la familia biológica es beneficioso a ese interés, se debe potenciar venciendo las resistencias iniciales tanto de las familias como de las instituciones públicas.Two years have happened from the implementation of the adoption opened in Spain. For it, the first approximation is necessary to know how it is applied in the different Autonomous Communities that integrate the Spanish territory. The results are not very pleasing for this new institution of opened adoption but if they are encouraging gradually the interest is opened in this new route of protection of the child in Spain, in the wake of the other countries (The United States of America, Great Britain, Austria, Canada or New Zealand) where if it is giving very good results. Probably we need a change of mentality towards the opened adoption. The best interest of the child has to occupy first place in all the institutions of protection and if to safeguard some of the relations with the biological family is beneficial to this interest must be promoted conquering the initial resistances both of the families and of the public institutions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".