MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164223979

Looking backwards, looking forwards: judicial and legislative trends in the regulation of surrogate motherhood in the UK and Australia.

2004· article· en· W2164223979 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anita Stuhmcke

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationLegislatureLawQuarter (Canadian coin)Common lawHigh CourtPolitical scienceRelation (database)SociologyHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been a quarter of a century since the first reported decision was handed down with respect to surrogate motherhood by a common law court. Since that initial decision Australian jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have seen a plethora of parliamentary inquiries, legislation and case law. This article reviews these historical legal developments in case law and legislation in both Australia and the UK to identify what, if any, trends are occurring in the regulation of surrogacy. It is suggested from this review that there is a trend towards recognising and allowing altruistic surrogacy. This raises issues of practical and theoretical importance in relation to the definition of family and the regulation of surrogacy.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207