Bringing birth fathers to the forefront: A two‐decade scoping review of birth father experiences in adoption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In adoption, it is common to consider the adopted child, the adoptive parents, and the birth mother as part of the adoption galaxy. Yet, birth fathers are often missing elements in adoption‐focused research. This article aims to comprehensively understand the current knowledge regarding birth fathers' experiences in adoption. Adapting the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses approach, this review identified 100 peer‐reviewed articles published from 2000 to 2022 on birth fathers in adoption. This article used a mixed‐methods approach to analyze the landscape of the current research. Quantitative analysis confirmed that birth fathers in adoption are under‐researched worldwide. In the qualitative analysis, the following themes emerged regarding birth fathers: a lack of openness, negative stereotypes, gatekeeping, and emotional impacts. The findings demonstrate the importance of considering the wishes and support needs of birth fathers when their child is being placed for adoption.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".