Proceeding carefully: Assisted human reproduction policy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Act Respecting Assisted Human Reproduction and Related Research (AHR Act), which came into effect in 2004, was the culmination of fifteen years of policy development in this often controversial field. Drawing from a series of semi-structured elite interviews and extensive documentary research, we examine the path to policy for the AHR Act. We identified several influences on the Act's development, including: (1) feminist-informed activism which found a balance between rejecting the medical model of reproduction and instituting protections against the commodifying potential of reproductive technologies; (2) Canada's proximity to the United States (and its contrasting structures and stances); (3) the role of professional elites in supporting or resisting the proposed regulations; and (4) the tensions between federal and provincial jurisdiction in the Canadian federalist state. The path to this outcome provides an illuminating study of the tensions between internal and external pressures in the policy process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".