MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Policy Statement on Recontacting Artificially Inseminated Patients: Scientific and Ethical Foundations

2002· article· en· W1492134037 on OpenAlexaffabout
CHRISTINE JANDET‐BRUNET, Marcel Mélançon, RENE BOISVERT, Michel Giroux, Raymond Lambert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Andrology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioethicsStatement (logic)Library scienceEthics committeePolitical scienceSociologyHumanitiesLawPublic administrationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexually transmitted diseases can be passed not only through unprotected sexual intercourse, but also through artificial insemination with a contaminated semen sample.Taking into account the possibility of transmission of diseases from questionable semen samples, Health Canada decided in 1996 to regulate semen donor selection and the use of donated sperm samples.Regulations included a questionnaire to identify individuals at high risk for sexually transmitted diseases and serological and semen screenings for various pathogens before artificial insemination.Several sperm banks in Canada did not comply with the Health Canada regulatory requirements in certain procedures (Health Canada, 2000).Some did not screen for human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV-I/II); others did not test semen samples for hepatitis B or C. To minimize the risk of transmission of infectious agents, these sperm banks have been prohibited from inseminating patients, and the embargo will be lifted only after the requirements of the Semen Regulations are satisfied.Additionally, as a precautionary measure, Health Canada strongly recommended notification and testing of all patients who were artificially inseminated with untested or partially tested semen:All recipients of donor semen should be tested as there are reasonable grounds to believe that they may have been at an increased risk of contracting one or more of

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AndrologySame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207