MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135451924 · doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100793

A child born with Edward's syndrome: the legal and moral duty to accede to the request for parentage determination

2013· article· en· W2135451924 on OpenAlexaff
Tak Kwong Chan, Edwin C. Hui, Brian Hon‐Yin Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Ethics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsRegent College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuspectDutyTest (biology)ObligationSubject (documents)ReproductionGenetic testingMedicineLawMoral obligationPsychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in medical technology inevitably bring about different kinds of ethical challenges for practising doctors. The following hypothetical case of assisted reproduction is presented as an example. A boy is born with Edward's syndrome following assisted reproduction. The parents suspect that there has been an error of embryo mix-up. They challenge the parenthood and request a genetic test to determine the biological parentage of the neonate. Should the attending paediatrician in this case accede to the request? We argue that the paediatrician has no legal obligation to offer the test, although it might be lawful and ethical to provide the test subject to the outcome of our proposed three-step risk assessment.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.351 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EthicsSame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207