MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976326988 · doi:10.2217/17410541.6.1.79

Assisted Human Reproduction Offspring and the Fundamental Right to Identity: The Recognition of the Right to Know One‘S Origins Under the European Convention of Human Rights

2008· article· en· W1976326988 on OpenAlexafffund
Mariana de Lorenzi, Verónica B. Piñero

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonalized Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsAssociation of Universities and Colleges of CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversitat de Barcelona
KeywordsRight to knowHuman rightsFundamental rightsDignityLawConventionPolitical scienceAutonomyIdentity (music)International human rights lawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An individual's right to know about their own origins entails a legal system that provides judicial guarantees that make effective the right to know about their genetic ancestors. This is part of the fundamental right to identity and has its basis in the principles of autonomy and dignity: an individual's right to knowledge of their genetic origins is implicitly recognized by article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As discussed in this paper, even though the European Court of Human Rights has not yet addressed this particular issue, the European legal systems that protect the anonymity of gamete donors and/or embryo donors appear to infringe an individual's right to genetic knowledge and, consequently, breaches Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.018
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0130.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonalized MedicineSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207