MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605002962 · doi:10.4000/droitcultures.4102

L’accès des couples de femmes à la procréation médicalement assistée : questions de filiation

2017· article· fr· W2605002962 on OpenAlexaff
Martine Gross

Bibliographic record

VenueDroit et Cultures · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArtGynecologyPhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La loi n°94-654 du 29 juillet 1994 relative au don et à l’utilisation des éléments et produits du corps humain, à l’assistance médicale à la procréation et au diagnostic prénatal, réserve l’accès à la procréation médicalement assistée aux seuls couples dont l’union sexuelle peut passer pour procréatrice, les couples hétérosexuels. Les femmes seules et les couples de femmes doivent se rendre à l’étranger pour recourir à une insémination artificielle ou une fécondation in vitro avec don de sperme. De retour en France, les couples de femmes mariées peuvent procéder à l’adoption de l’enfant de la conjointe pour établir leur co-maternité. Cette contribution passe en revue les enjeux du débat autour de l’accès des couples de femmes à la procréation médicalement assistée et les questions de filiation qui en découlent.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDroit et CulturesSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207