Canadian International Human Rights Obligations in the Context of Assisted Human Reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In Canada, as in most countries, assisted human reproduction has become accessible treatment for individuals who wish to conceive. Scientific advancements in the area of human reproduction have led to the enactment of legislation that attempts to regulate this novel field. The Canadian Assisted Human Reproduction Act (2004) identifies the health and wellbeing of children born through reproductive technologies as a paramount principle in all decisions respecting their use. On the other hand, and surprisingly, the statute restricts access by offspring to information that can lead to identification of their genitors. The disclosure of donors’ identity to the recipients of reproductive materials is quite limited. According to this article, this legislation is in violation of international human rights law on health, identity, and family relations to which Canada is a party. The first part of the article explores international human rights law on identity, health, and family relations rights that Canada has signed, ratified, or acceded to. The second part discusses whether the Canadian legal system is in line with the relevant international human rights obligations identified earlier and asserts that there is scope for judicially interpreting Canadian law in such a way that would conform to those obligations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
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".