MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W30309136 · doi:10.1111/1754-9485.21_12784

La procréation médicalement assistée et le droit des enfants qui en sont issus à la connaissance de leurs origines

2014· article· fr· W30309136 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laurence Le Guillou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé : À la naissance du premier bébé-éprouvette le 25 juillet 1978, un nouveau chapitre de la médecine reproductive s’est ouvert. Depuis, plusieurs enfants sont nés de la procréation médicalement assistée, parfois grâce au don de gamètes d’un tiers. Quand un premier encadrement législatif de la procréation médicalement assistée a été mis en place dans les années 1990, le législateur québécois s’est assuré de protéger la vie privée et la liberté des donneurs et des parents. En effet, il a consacré le principe de la confidentialité des renseignements personnels relatifs à la procréation médicalement assistée. En conséquence, les enfants issus d’un don de gamètes au Québec ignorent tout de leurs origines biologiques. Alors que plusieurs enfants témoignent aujourd’hui de la souffrance qu’ils vivent face à l’impossibilité d’en savoir plus sur leur identité, il y a lieu de s’interroger sur la pertinence de la règle de la confidentialité des renseignements personnels relatifs à la procréation médicalement assistée. Nous tenterons à travers le présent essai de mettre en évidence que cette règle mérite d’être révisée à la lumière des conséquences que nous connaissons aujourd’hui.
\n// Abstract : 
\nWhen the first test-tube baby was born on July 25, 1978, a new chapter of reproductive medicine began. Since then, a number of children have been born of medically assisted procreation—some through third-party gamete donation. When the first legislative framework for medically assisted procreation was implemented in the 1990s, the Quebec legislature made sure that the privacy and freedom of donors and parents were protected. It was written into the law that personal information relating to medically assisted procreation is confidential. Consequently, children born of gamete donations in Quebec completely disregard their biological origins. As many children have started talking about the hardships of not being able to find out more about their identity, there is reason to question the relevance of the rule stating that personal information relating to medically assisted procreation is confidential. This paper will attempt to demonstrate that the rule should be revised in light of the consequences of which we are aware today.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.381 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Imaging and Radiation OncologySame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207