Liability for harms caused <i>in utero</i>: new technologies, new problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rationale for current tortious actions against mothers for injuries caused in utero is examined and defended as a means of the harmed born alive child seeking financial compensation from insurance companies. The upshot of this argument is that within this range of cases maternal tort immunity should be denied as it prevents the mother from being able to seek compensation for her injured born alive child. In effect, under current circumstances, maternal immunity hurts both the mother and her offspring. However, looking ahead to the likely progress of medical science and social justice studies, maternal immunity should be given serious consideration for cases that may emerge from a new and varied range of medical technologies. These technological developments include epigenetics, genetic engineering, and ectogenesis (the use of an artificial womb), and the issues these technologies raise – which include the status of the foetus and the permissibility of abortion, as well as the definition of ‘harm’ and ‘disability’ – are complex and have disturbing implications for maternal liability.
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 | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".