Feasibility of an altruistic sperm donation program in Canada: results from a population-based model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stringent donor-screening criteria and legislation prohibiting payment for donor gametes have contributed to the radical decline of donor insemination (DI) using sperm provided by Canadian men. Thus, many individuals rely on imported sperm. This paper examines the feasibility of an altruistic sperm donation (ASD) program to meet the needs of Canadians. METHODS: Using Canadian census data, published literature and expert opinions, two population-based, top-down mathematical models were developed to estimate the supply and demand for donor sperm and the feasibility of an ASD program. RESULTS: It was estimated that 63 donors would pass Canadian screening criteria, which would provide 1,575 donations. The demand for DI by women was 7,866 samples (4,319 same sex couples, 1,287 single women and 2,260 heterosexual couples). CONCLUSION: Considerable effort would be necessary to create the required increase in awareness of the program and change in societal behaviour towards sperm donation for an ASD program to be feasible in Canada.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".