Book Review: Petra Nordqvist and Carol Smart, Relative Strangers: Family Life, Genes and Donor Conception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relative Strangers: Family Life, Genes and Donor Conception, 1 written by Petra Nordqvist and Carol Smart, both from the University of Manchester, describes the results of interviews with parents and grandparents about their experiences with donor conception.The book starts with a story from the mother of a donor-conceived child who is sitting in a crowded waiting room of a doctor's office with her fouryear-old daughter.This mother had been open with her daughter about the fact that her daddy is not her biological father and the child starts talking to her mother in the waiting room about Mr. Donor who provided sperm.The mother has no option but to hide her embarrassment and confirm that her daughter is right.2 This story puts the reader instantly in the middle of the dilemmas faced by parents of donor-conceived children.Being open with their children about donor conception does not necessarily prepare parents for the consequences, including that the children will talk about being donor conceived with other people, which means the donor conception is no longer a private matter but, rather, public knowledge.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.012 |
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".