Canadian Counsellors’ Views of Working with Individuals Considering Third Party Reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assisted Human Reproduction has altered the way people can achieve parenthood; individuals, families and nations have had to adjust. In Canada the lack of legislation for this rapidly growing area of privatized medicine has meant there are complex issues that must be grappled with by both donors and prospective parents. Many Canadian fertility clinics require people who consider participating in third-party reproduction see a counsellor before they proceed. The focus of this research is to understand how Canadian counsellors view the role they play in their work with third-party pre-treatment clients. This question was explored through a qualitative study. The data gained through interviews and email surveys were analyzed using thematic analysis. The study found that counsellors see themselves in a role that requires specialized skills they use to create a forum for discussion in which they educate, broaden clients’ context and reluctantly have influence on whether or not clients proceed with treatment. They face pressures from a poorly regulated system. The counsellors balance the needs of their clients for information and support with those of the physicians to whom they report.
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 | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".