A Scoping Review and a Critical Analysis of the International Adoption Research Field in the Social Sciences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many researchers study international adoption. However, to date, no systematic analysis has been conducted to characterize this field in the social sciences, in terms of disciplinary origins, methodological approaches and theories used. Therefore, it is difficult to obtain an overall picture of basic trends and of marginal or even incomplete ones. This situation can slow down the development of knowledge regarding international adoption. Our scoping review is based on a systematic survey of studies published from 2000 to 2019 (n = 164). The results demonstrate that: (1) researchers specialized in psychology dominate this field of study; (2) the quantitative approach is most widely used; and (3) cognitive-behavioral, ethnic and racial identity as well as attachment theories are the main perspectives adopted. This article concludes by discussing the consequences of this situation, as well as relevant avenues for further research.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it