Birth registration and same-sex parenting in the UK and Canada: some unanswered questions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to provoke discussion about what society is aiming to achieve through systems of birth registration with respect to same-sex parenting particularly following assisted reproduction. It considers the position in the UK and contrasts this with various jurisdictions in Canada, which adopt differing approaches to birth registration in this context. Since the adoption of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, it has been possible for two female parents to appear on a child’s birth certificate immediately following birth and for two male parents to be registered following the court granting a parental order in their favour. A number of issues remain unaddressed, however. For example, the terminology used in birth certificates needs to be explored further. Why are we reluctant to record a child as having two mothers or two fathers? There also needs to be greater discussion about the number of adults that can be recorded on a birth certificate. A number of jurisdictions in Canada allow more than two adults to be registered on a child’s birth certificate in order to reflect the parenting reality in some same-sex families. This raises questions about what the functions and legal effects of birth certificates should be. This is relevant in both a domestic and international setting, where a court declaration of parentage in addition to the birth certificate may be required before recognising the parent-child relationships in same-sex families when crossing national borders. Rather than reaching any firm conclusions on these points, the intention of this paper is to highlight these potentially controversial issues in the hope of stimulating debate around a topic that is of considerable importance in the lives of increasing numbers of same-sex families.
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 | 0.012 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".