Of Surrogate Mother Born: Parentage Determinations in Canada and Elsewhere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines statutory regimes and judicial decisions in Canada on parentage and citizenship for children born to surrogate mothers and compares these laws with those of other countries, especially Britain and Australia. Provincial parentage laws (with the notable exception of Québec) and federal law and policy on citizenship favour an expedited process requiring minimal, if any, judicial or administrative oversight on issues related to exploitation such as free and informed consent or financial arrangements. In contrast, British and Australian processes are more inquisitive, expensive, inflexible, and time consuming. Complicated post-birth parentage and citizenship laws do little to protect women against exploitation because, after the birth, surrogate mothers are almost never reluctant to hand over children to intended parents. As long as a genetic link is established between an intended parent and the child, concerns about child trafficking should also be assuaged. Once a child is born, and absent the rare case where disputes arise between the surrogate mother and the intended parents or where there is no genetic link between the child and an intended parent, it will almost always be in that child’s best interests to establish the child’s parentage and citizenship quickly and with certainty.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".