MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159796110 · doi:10.1136/jme.26.4.295

Truth and the Child 10 years on: Information Exchange in Donor Assisted Conception

2000· article· en· W2159796110 on OpenAlexaff
Christine Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Ethics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnonymityDonor inseminationFreedom of informationAssociation (psychology)LawSociologyPolitical scienceLibrary scienceArtificial inseminationPsychologyComputer scienceBiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The original Truth and the Child was published in 1988 after publication of the Warnock Report, which identified issues arising from the increasing use of human reproductive technologies. The authors of the original collection felt that the rights of children to information about their origins had not been addressed satisfactorily by the committee chaired by Warnock, which indeed supported a policy of donor anonymity. This policy of anonymity was incorporated into the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990). Ten years on, this new collection revisits the issue, offering powerful arguments, anecdotes, and some research supporting the authors' position that with regards to information about origin the interests of the children created by donor insemination should take precedence over those of their infertile parents or the gamete donors who enabled their …

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.026
Scholarly communication0.0150.022
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0130.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EthicsSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207