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 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.060
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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