La reproduction humaine : rapports entre les normes éthiques et les règles juridiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notre réflexion s’inscrit dans les préoccupations de la Commission royale d’enquête sur les nouvelles techniques de reproduction, créée par le gouvernement fédéral canadien en octobre 1989. Après avoir décrit le mandat de cette commission et la problématique juridique pertinente, nous nous concentrons sur les liens juridiques de nature patrimoniale et extrapatrimoniale découlant des échanges internes des créateurs de nouvelles techniques de procréation médicalement assistée, de diagnostic et de thérapies géniques; puis nous examinons leurs répercussions sur les rapports complexes avec les « objets » ou les « sujets » de ces techniques. Nous examinons tout particulièrement les rapports entre les principes des droits patrimoniaux (propriété, brevet, contrat) et les principes des droits fondamentaux de la personne, applicables à ce domaine de l’activité médicale et humaine.
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 | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".