Reproductive Choice in Canadian Courts: An Evidence-Based Call for a Move to Relational Autonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In matters of reproduction, "choice" is a word laden with political and ethical connotations. The moral norm of respecting a woman's reproductive choice deserves our best defence. However, it is not often recognized that there can be a danger inherent in claiming that women have made reproductive choices — to become pregnant, to continue a pregnancy, or alternatively to terminate a pregnancy — when choices were not in fact made. In some legal cases, the outcome can turn on whether the judge believes a woman made a particular reproductive choice. If the judge believes, mistakenly, that the woman made a particular choice, then the resulting ruling can be damaging to her interests. This paper examines the role of judicial beliefs about reproductive choice and the harm that mistaken beliefs can cause. It suggests some ways to avoid these harms.
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 | 0.123 | 0.293 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".