Towards guidelines for the accreditation of \ninter-country adoption mediation agencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the report is to present draft guidelines for the accreditation and registration by the Irish Adoption Board (Now Adoption Authority of Ireland) of intercountry adoption mediation agencies that are based in Ireland. The Guidelines have regard to the 1952 Irish adoption law, as well as proposed legislation which will ratify the Hague Convention (Now Adoption Act 2010). The guidelines are also intended to cover the inspection of, and maintaining standards by, the intercountry adoption mediation agencies (ICAMA) accredited and registered by the Adoption Board. \n\n The Guidelines were prepared in Draft format initially for consultation purposes with interested parties. They take account of the requirements of the Hague Convention, and international practice for the accreditation of ICAMA, and in particular the arrangements in the Netherlands, Sweden, UK, Canada, Australia and the USA.
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 | 0.201 | 0.215 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.021 |
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".