Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a consensus that adoptees and immigrants both experience more mental health problems than their peers. The two groups share many risk factors for psychosis, but an increased risk for psychotic illness has only been demonstrated for immigrants. AIMS: The aim of this review is to describe psychosis risk factors in adoptees, with a focus on difficulties with identity formation, identification with in-groups, attachment to parents, and coping with loss and with discrimination. METHOD: The literature in these five areas is reviewed as it pertains to adoption and psychosis. RESULTS: There are no clear findings because the relevant studies have not been done, but the literature suggests that adopted children face challenges very similar to those of immigrants to a new country. CONCLUSION: The immigration field and the adoption field have much to learn from each other. It is recommended that a prevention strategy analogous to increased neighbourhood ethnic density be implemented with adoptees - that they be intentionally exposed from early childhood and throughout adolescence to age peers who share a similar background and with whom they can readily identify. It is also recommended that immigrants be welcomed into their host country with the same open arms as adoptive parents welcome their new children.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".