MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119387610 · doi:10.1080/00016340802012304

Sex selection, gender‐based violence and human rights abuse

2008· letter· en· W2119387610 on OpenAlexaff
Jerker Liljestrand, Dorothy Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSelection (genetic algorithm)Human rightsHuman factors and ergonomicsMedical emergencyPoison controlSuicide preventionInjury preventionSex selectionCriminologyObstetricsLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Peoples Republic of China over 10% of young women are missing. One major contributory factor to this loss of millions of human lives is sex selective abortion based on early ultrasound. This practice legal or illegal is also common in other countries such as parts of India. In this light it is surprising that Hsiao et al. in Acta number 1 2008 do not even mention this dilemma in their study of early fetal sex determination by ultrasound. They do refer to the fact that many Taiwanese/Chinese wish to have early information on fetal sex however they do not mention the ethical dilemma of disclosing such information particularly in parts of the world where such information may lead to - and does lead to - the earliest form of gender-based violence and major human rights abuse directed against the female sex. The Editors comment does raise this dilemma however this is insufficient as many readers will read the original paper only. FIGOs ethical guidelines emphasize that professional societies and their members are accountable for the employment of techniques for sex selection only for medical indications; and that in regional areas with marked sex ratio imbalance professional societies should work with governments to ensure that sex selection is strictly regulated. It is surprising to us that Acta would permit such a paper to go to print without any discussion in the paper of the ethical and human rights implications of the scientific findings. (full text)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.259 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica ScandinavicaSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207