Bibliographic record
Abstract
Along with advances in technology comes the need for government guidelines and laws to ensure that those technologies are used safely and responsibly. This article covers the development of the rules in the United Kingdom that govern assisted conception, and the implications of these rules for day to day clinical practice. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was passed in 1990 in response to the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (the Warnock report), which examined three main public concerns. These were: The act established the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), and its licensing and inspection procedures, as the main mechanism for regulating these activities. ![][1] Baroness Mary Warnock chaired the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology 1982-4 The HFEA is a statutory non-departmental public body and is accountable to the secretary of state for health. Established in 1991, it is the first statutory body of its type in the world. It has 18 members who are appointed by the secretary of state, including a lay chairperson and a deputy chairperson. At least one third, but not more than half, of its membership may be registered medical practitioners or those who have been involved with assisted conception or its research funding. View this table: Assisted conception treatments that require an HFEA licence* Three types of licences can be granted by the HFEA. A treatment licence allows the unit to pursue treatments that fall under the act. A storage licence allows cryopreservation and storage of gametes and embryos. A research licence is needed to perform any research that uses human embryos in vitro. View this table: Research using human embryos in vitro permitted under an HFEA … [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".