POSTHUMOUSLY CONCEIVED CHILDREN: DETERMINATION OF PARENTAGE AND INHERITANCE RIGHTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The possibility to store sperm and to produce embryos in vitro has made it possible for a child to be conceived after the death of one or even both of the child’s parents and the number of posthumous conceptions has increased in recent decades around the world. Posthumous reproduction raises a complex of legal issues: has someone the right to harvest sperm from a dead man body and to use cryopreserved sperm, embryos or eggs to conceive a child after the death of his (her) genetic parent, can posthumously conceived child have legal tie with such a parent and inherit from his (her) parent? These issues have direct relevance to human rights in the sphere of reproduction and the rights of posthumously conceived child simultaneously. According to foreign law the key questions in determination of parentage are the consent of the deceased person to use postmortem reproduction and his or her consent to be a parent of posthumously conceived child. Traditionally to inherit, a person must be alive at the death of the testator or to be conceived before the death, but this rule has been already changed in 21 states of the USA and the Canadian province of British Columbia, where posthumously conceived children can inherit. However, besides the determination of parentage, there are several other additional conditions of their inheritance rights.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".