Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several legal principles challenge current policy of gamete donor anonymity, and require that Canadian legislation clearly move toward a policy of open donor records. These considerations include provisions of United Nations Convention on Rights of Child, Charter protections of equality for offspring of donors, privacy considerations for offspring regarding their own lie choices and provisions within Bill C-13 itself that emphasize priority of well-being of children. On December 10, 2002, a 6-5 vote in House Standing Committee on Health narrowly defeated an amendment Section 18(3) of Assisted Human Reproduction Act (1) that would allow adult offspring of donor (2) conception have access identifying information about their genetic parents. The surprising failure approve amendment reverses Committee's own December 2001 (3) conclusions that Canadian legislation on assisted reproduction must enable offspring have access such information. More important, passing Bill C-13 without such an amendment would establish--for first time--a class of individuals who are specifically prevented by federal law from having access accurate information about their genetic origins. While trend in adoption law over recent decades has been toward openness, not all jurisdictions require open records; none, however, specifically requires that secrecy be maintained. Establishing a class of individuals whose genetic origins must be kept secret would be a serious mistake, and may leave Canadian government open significant legal challenges regarding human rights obligations and violations of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (4) Donor anonymity has been an unstructured social experiment in which results for donor offspring have been almost entirely ignored. There is no evidence that anonymity is best for offspring or social families, while infertility counselors (5) and donor offspring (6) themselves document common experiences of grief, loss, isolation, disconnection, struggles with formation, and anger at secrets being kept about them. Secrecy may damage social family relationships, especially if truth comes out during a crisis. As with adoption, social families may fend a variety of age-appropriate ways incorporate knowledge about, and even relationships with, child's biological parent(s), but those who would prefer openness are able give no details beyond acknowledging involvement of an unknown donor. The preamble this legislation seeks protect dignity of persons affected by assisted conception techniques, but purposely hiding fundamental information about a person's is opposite of treating them with dignity: it institutionalizes lying. Declining provide an answer (deception by omission) is often insufficient respond children's questions about their origins; outright fabrication of lies is often required keep secret. Governments share obligation tell truth citizens, but are often complicit in deception about biological origins in birth certificates and, if present legislative proposal is enacted, in regulation of assisted conception. Bill C-13 establishes at section 2(a) that the health and well-being of children born through application of these technologies must be given priority in all decisions respecting their use. While there is understandable distress at changes current ad hoc practice of donor anonymity, legislation must move toward a policy of openness on grounds of human rights, Charter protections of equality, and privacy rights. Human Rights Article 8 of United Nations Convention on Rights of Child (7) commits States Parties to respect right of child preserve his or her identity and provide assistance and protection when a child is deprived of some or all of elements of his or her identity. …
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it