Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinically detailed report of a successful uterus transplantation and live birth in Sweden, in which a family friend donated her uterus, provides a basis for expanded practice. Family members and friends can serve as living donors without offending legal or ethical prohibitions of paid organ donation, even though family members and friends often engage in reciprocal gift exchanges. Donations from living unrelated sources are more problematic, and there is a need to monitor donors' genuine altruism and motivation. Donation by deceased women-i.e. cadaveric donation-raises issues of uterus suitability for transplantation, and how death is diagnosed. Organs' suitability for donation is often achieved by ventilation to maintain cardiac function for blood circulation, but laws and cultures could deem that a heartbeat indicates donors' live status. Issues could arise concerning ownership and control of organs between recovery from donors and implantation into recipients, and on removal following childbirth, that require legal resolution.
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 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.041 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".