MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983280196 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.060696

Surrogate pregnancy: a guide for Canadian prenatal health care providers

2007· review· en· W1983280196 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Daniel Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyHealth carePrenatal careMedicineFace (sociological concept)PregnancyNursingInternet privacyFamily medicinePsychologyPolitical scienceLawEnvironmental healthSociologyPopulationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Providing health care for a woman with a surrogate pregnancy involves unique challenges. Although the ethical debate surrounding surrogacy continues, Canada has banned commercial, but not altruistic, surrogacy. In the event of a custody dispute between a surrogate mother and the individual(s) intending to parent the child, it is unclear how Canadian courts would rule. The prenatal health care provider must take extra care to protect the autonomy and privacy rights of the surrogate. There is limited evidence about the medical and psychological risks of surrogacy. Whether theoretical concerns about these risks are clinically relevant remains unknown. In the face of these uncertainties, the prenatal health care provider should have a low threshold for seeking obstetrical, social work, ethical and legal support.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.021

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.333 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207