Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The Government of China introduced a donation system for organs long after it had developed a nation-wide, high volume organ transplantation industry. The Government has acknowledged that, before its donation system was introduced, the bulk of organs for transplants was coming from prisoners. The Government says that donors have replaced prisoners as sources for organs. The purpose of this presentation would be first to assess this assertion. The second purpose would be to consider the implications of this assessment. Methods In assessing the assertion that sourcing in China of organs for transplants come from voluntary donors, the presentation would consider the statements of Chinese health officials about transplant volumes and sources, the results of investigations into volumes at individual donation centres, transplant volumes in individual hospitals, the current law in China about organ sourcing, and information about payments to families for organ donation. Results Donation volumes do not account for transplant volumes. Statements by health officials have been inconsistent. The law which allows sourcing of organs from prisoners remains in force. The numbers which individual donation centres are generating is tiny. It is impossible to account for transplant volumes through the numbers being generated from donation centres. This is true even if one takes into account purchased organs. Conclusion Donations cannot account for transplant volumes in China. Organ sourcing from prisoners in China continues. There are these implications: Both the European Union Parliament and the United States Congress House of Representatives have called by way of resolution for an independent investigation into the sourcing of organs for transplantation in China. This call for an independent investigation remains as valid as ever. Health professionals abroad should not collaborate in research with health professionals in China on transplantation unless the sourcing of organs for research is proper beyond a reasonable doubt. No journal should publish transplant research from any researcher in China unless the sourcing of organs for research which is being written up is proper beyond a reasonable doubt. No conference should allow presentation of transplantation research done in China unless the sourcing of organs for research which is being presented up is proper beyond a reasonable doubt. References: 1. David Matas and David Kilgour "Bloody Harvest". 2. Ethan Gutmann "The Slaughter". 3. David Matas, David Kilgour and Ethan Gutmann "An update to Bloody Harvest and The Slaughter".
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".