MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078629634 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.05.001

Sex selection: Treating different cases differently

2005· article· en· W2078629634 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard M. Dickens, Gamal I. Serour, Rebecca J. Cook, Ren-Zong Qiu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSex selectionGirlSelection (genetic algorithm)RedressSex ratioAbortionIncentiveConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against WomenPsychologyPreferenceDemographyPolitical scienceDevelopmental psychologyLawPregnancyEconomicsSociologyBiologyComputer sciencePopulationHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper contrasts ethical approaches to sex selection in countries where discrimination against women is pervasive, resulting in selection against girl children, and in countries where there is less general discrimination and couples do not prefer children of either sex. National sex ratio imbalances where discrimination against women is common have resulted in laws and policies, such as in India and China, to deter and prevent sex selection. Birth ratios of children can be affected by techniques of prenatal sex determination and abortion, preconception sex selection and discarding disfavored embryos, and prefertilization sperm sorting, when disfavored sperm remain unused. Incentives for son preference are reviewed, and laws and policies to prevent sex selection are explained. The elimination of social, economic and other discrimination against women is urged to redress sex selection against girl children. Where there is no general selection against girl children, sex selection can be allowed to assist families that want children of both sexes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207