Book Review: Foundational Facts, Relative Truths: A Comparative Law Study On Children's Right To Know Their Genetic Origins, by Richard J. Blauwhoff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PEOPLE CONCEIVED WITH DONOR GAMETES are coming of age in greater numbers.Many do not know about their unusual conception and have been led to believe their social parents are also their genetic parents.Do individuals have a right to know the truth about their origins?Ought they to have?These questions, unresolved in Canada, may be better answered now with the publication of the thoughtful and dispassionate work of Richard J. Blauwhoff, Foundational Facts, Relative Truths: A Comparative Law Study onChildren's Right to Know Their Genetic Origins. 3 This long book is the publication of Blauwhoff's award-winning doctoral dissertation.Recognized in 2009 by the Erasmus Research Prize and the Dutch-German Lawyers Prize, the work is an ambitious and largely successful in-depth comparative law analysis of the right to information about one's progenitors in four European countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Portugal.The book aims to delineate the conceptual and procedural scope of the right to know one's origins and to articulate the philosophical basis upon which such a right is founded in the nations under examination.It focuses on the issue from the perspective of the donor-conceived.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".