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
<JATS1:p>This compilation of the best thinking about adoption by both historical and current authorities reveals a vital, ever-changing practice affecting the lives of millions of people around the globe.</JATS1:p> <JATS1:p>The ancient practice of adoption has changed significantly through history. In colonial America, parents adopted out their unwanted children those who were "rude, stubborn, and unruly" to other families. Today, Americans go abroad looking for children to adopt, and have adopted more than a quarter million internationally.</JATS1:p> <JATS1:p>Adoption: A Reference Handbook, Second Edition not only traces the development of expert thinking about adoption, it also looks at both sides of the latest controversial issues. Should adoptions be open or closed? Should the government regulate adoptions more closely or less? This updated second edition offers an international perspective with a new chapter on how countries outside the United States provide adoption services. This work is an indispensable resource for those thinking about adoption or researching its history.</JATS1:p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it