Exiting or Going Forth? An Overview of USA Outgoing Adoptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United States (USA) has long led the world in the adoption of children from other countries, with over 300,000 adopted in the last 30 years (see Chapter 1). Given this magnitude of foreign-born adopted children living in the United States, it is not surprising that academic works have focused on the adjustment, development, and well-being of these children and their adoptive families. Missing from this academic canon, however, are the experiences of adoptive parents, birthparents, and adoptees that comprise a smaller subset of USA adoptions known as outgoing cases (U.S. DOS, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 2009a, 2011). This official Department of State (U.S. DOS) descriptor covers those intercountry adoptions, in which USA children, mostly Black and Biracial infants are adopted by citizens of Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and other countries. The USA, with respect to intercountry adoption, is both a receiving and a sending nation. Indeed, from 2003 to 2009, nearly 1,500 USA-born children were adopted by foreign nationals in 14 countries (see Chapter 1) This chapter outlines some of the issues surrounding outgoing adoptions, provides an overview of the process and ends with a brief discussion of an exploratory qualitative research study conducted by the author with USA and Canadian adoption professionals involved with these adoption cases over time. The discussion is framed within the context of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption (HCIA) and the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA; Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, 2000), and is focused on USA infant adoptions to convention countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".