MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2523481276 · doi:10.29173/alr439

Prenatal Harm and the Duty of Care

2016· article· en· W2523481276 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Erin Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppealJurisprudenceSupreme courtLawHarmLegislationCLARITYDutyPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the author explores the jurisprudence surrounding a contentious area of tortlaw: wrongful life claims. These claims focus on the situation in which the physician’snegligence lies in the failure to provide the child’s parents with the opportunity to preventthe birth of the child. Historically, courts have been unreceptive to wrongful life claims, andcurrent Canadian jurisprudence on this issue lacks clarity owing to inconsistent treatmentof these cases by the courts. The author exposes errors in reasoning in two cases decided bythe Ontario Court of Appeal, noting that these cases add to the incoherence of the legallandscape. She concludes with an appeal for Supreme Court authority or legislation toclarify the law.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207