MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156203143 · doi:10.2147/ijgm.s36426

Measuring reproductive tourism through an analysis of Indian ART clinic Websites

2012· article· en· W2156203143 on OpenAlexaff
Raywat Deonandan, Mirhad Loncar, Prinon Rahman, Sabrina Omar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of General Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTourismTraditional medicineFamily medicineArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: India is fast becoming the most prominent player in the global industry of reproductive tourism, in which infertile people cross international borders to seek assisted reproduction technologies. This study was conducted to better understand the extent and manner in which Indian clinics seek foreign clients. METHODS: A systematic search of official Indian assisted reproduction technologies clinic Websites was undertaken, and instances noted where foreign clients were overtly targeted, and where maternal surrogacy was overtly offered. RESULTS: A total of 159 clinics with Web addresses were identified, though only 78 had functioning Websites. All were published in English, with the majority clustered in the states of Maharashtra (14) and Gujarat (9). Of the 78 functioning Websites, 53 (68%) featured some mention of maternal surrogacy services, and 42 (54%) made overt overtures to foreign clients. Qualitative appeals to foreigners included instructions for international adoption, visa application, and the legal parental disposition of the surrogate. All Maharashtran clinic Websites that mentioned surrogacy also overtly featured reproductive tourism. Preimplantation diagnosis services were not offered disproportionately by clinics mentioning reproductive tourism. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon clinic online profiles, reproductive tourism comprises a substantial fraction of India's assisted reproduction technologies clinics' business focus, clustering around its most tourist-friendly locales, and surrogacy may be a strong motivator for international clientele.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of General MedicineSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207