MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564649793 · doi:10.1016/j.rbms.2016.09.004

Enduring politics: the culture of obstacles in legislating for assisted reproduction technologies in Ireland

2016· article· en· W2564649793 on OpenAlexaff
Jill Allison

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Biomedicine & Society Online · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersFondation Brocher
KeywordsPoliticsLegislationReproductive technologyAssisted reproductive technologyKinshipReproductionAbortionGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceReproductive medicineLegislatureSociologyLawInfertilityBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

. This paper examines the impact of an enduring political impasse. It explores how clinical assisted reproductive technology services in Ireland operate both inside and outside dominant institutional frameworks, meeting a pronatalist and pro-family social and political agenda, while sometimes contradicting the pro-life politics that has continued to shape women's reproductive lives. The medical approaches to infertility thus intersect with the ongoing debates around abortion, the failure of the government to regulate, and notions of embodied motherhood and responsibility within changing meanings of family and kinship. At the same time women and their partners seek assisted reproductive technology treatment in other countries throughout the European Union where laws differ and availability of services varies. A decade has passed since the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction in Ireland released its recommendations; the enduring legislative vacuum leaves women, families and practitioners in potential legal limbo.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.032
Scholarly communication0.0220.005
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0060.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueReproductive Biomedicine & Society OnlineSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207