Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quebec's legal regime for the establishment of parent-child relationships was substantially modified in 2002 in order to achieve equality. Reforms left untouched, however, an existing rule justified by women's equality: the absolute nullity of surrogacy agreements. The article shows how the rule has led judges to preclude the filiation of children born of surrogacy in certain situations and how it has forced judges to apply creative, albeit unpredictable, solutions in others. It explores the decisions of Quebec courts, through the portraits of surrogates traced in the decisions—the good, the bad, and the foreigner. The brief overview of cases exhibits how similar and different facts have an inconsistent impact on the ratios of the decisions. The weight given to some legal elements (the importance of the declaration and attestation of birth, the possibility of considering the consent of the father vitiated, the single surrogate versus the surrogate in a relationship, the civil status of the intended parents, and so on) to the detriment of others is problematized. The article depicts how labels and stereotypes predominate in legal reasoning when legal rules are not clear, creating problematic discourses about sensitive topics (womanhood and motherhood, children's rights, and sexual orientation).
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".