A longitudinal study of the intellectual and academic development of children adopted from Romanian orphanages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the intellectual and academic development of Romanian orphans adopted by Canadian families approximately 8 years ago.It is part of a larger longitudinal study that addresses the overall development of these children following severe early deprivation in Romanian institutions.The present study has three main objectives: to compare the intellectual and academic performance of the Romanian orphans @ = 36; 17 boys; mean age at assessment = 10 Yz years) to non-adopted Canadian born children and Early-adopted Romanian children who were destined for orphanages had they not been adopted in infancy; to examine predictive variables from Phase 1 and 2; and to compare the academic self-perceptions of the Romanian orphans with their counterparts.The children completed standardized IQ and achievement tests in addition to a child self-report questionnaire.Parents and teachers also completed questionnaires regarding the children's school performance.The Romanian orphans (RO) had lower scores on all standardized intellectual and academic measures than their comparisons.Parent and teacher reports also indicated that the RO children had more school difficulties and a higher incidence of grade retention than CB and EA children.Significant negative correlations were found between the length of time spent in an institution prior to adoption and several intellectual and academic measures.Stimulation in the home and school readiness scores at age 4 '/z were predictive of intellectual and academic functioning at age 10 '/z.The Romanian orphans' academic self-perceptions were as positive as their Canadian born peers.The EA children generally scored 'in between' the other two groups, with the exception of their academic self-perceptions, which were higher than the RO or CB groups. DEDICATIONThis thesis is dedicated to the children, parents, and teachers who kindly agreed to participate in this research.Table 19: Regression analyses using Predictor Variables at Time 1 and Time 2 and Intellectual and Academic Performance at Time 3 for the RO Group .............
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".