Equal Choice, Equal Benefit: Gendered Disability and the Regulation of Assisted Human Reproduction in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La reglementation concernant la technologie reproductive au Canada est publiee au fur et a mesure que la Loi concernant la procreation assistee entre en vigueur . Le present article explore la possibilite que le Canada suive l’exemple d’autres juridictions en interdisant l’utilisation d’un diagnostique genetique prealable a l’implantation pour effectuer une « selection positive » des embryons selon leurs caracteristiques genetiques. L’impact d’une telle interdiction est analyse, a partir d’une perspective feministe et critique, dans le contexte d’un handicap en fonction du genre. L’article conclut qu’une telle interdiction serait susceptible de faire l’objet d’une contestation judiciaire, fondee sur l’article 15 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes. Abstract: Canada’s regulatory framework for reproductive technology is emerging as the Assisted Human Reproduction Act is brought into force. This article considers the possibility that Canada would follow other jurisdictions in prohibiting the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for the “positive selection” of embryos with genetic conditions. The impact of such a prohibition is considered in the context of gendered disability from a feminist and a critical disability perspective. The article concludes that a prohibition would be vulnerable to a legal challenge on the basis of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".