MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394661373 · doi:10.29173/alr1409

Clones, Controversy, and Criminal Law: A Comment on the Proposal for Legislation Governing Assisted Human Reproduction

2001· article· en· W2394661373 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Timothy Caulfield

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationReproductionCriminal lawLawGovernment (linguistics)Mechanism (biology)Political scienceGovernment regulationReproductive technologyHuman reproductionLaw and economicsSociologyBiologyGeneticsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past few years there has been a tremendous amount of regulatory conflict and social controversy in the area of reproductive genetics. The Canadian government has recently released a proposal for legislating in this complex arena. Although the proposed Bill contains many positive elements, it is argued that the use of the criminal law as a regulatory mechanism is neither warranted nor appropriate. The author suggests a more flexible and responsive system of moratoriums and licenses that would enable review and adjustment to the realities of emerging reproductive technologies is a better approach.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0240.019
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0100.004
Research integrity0.1430.065
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207