MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082545114 · doi:10.1080/13691058.2020.1784464

Experiences of gestational surrogacy for gay men in Canada

2020· article· en· W3082545114 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sophia Fantus

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Health & Sexuality · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityLegislationDocumentationContext (archaeology)Gender studiesQualitative researchPsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyDemographyPopulationGeographyLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on findings from a qualitative study that examined how Canada's socio-political context influenced gestational surrogacy for same-sex male couples. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with gay fathers and gestational surrogates to investigate supports and barriers of pursuing surrogacy. Questions explored publicly available information, policies and practices of fertility clinics and hospitals, post-birth resources and cultural attitudes regarding same-sex parenthood. Findings suggest that in Canada, a global leader in LGBT rights and inclusive same-sex parenting legislation, participants encountered inadequate same-sex inclusive resources and insufficient provider competencies. The aim of this study was to inform individual and institutional recommendations to counteract biases in fertility care and post-birth services. Following interview analysis, five key strategies were identified: (1) more accessible information on paths to same-sex parenthood; (2) more inclusive fertility clinic and hospital practices; (3) recognition of same-sex fatherhood in formal documentation; (4) post-birth resources such as formula feeding, play groups and first aid courses intended for same-sex parent families; and (5) shifts in cultural attitudes of same-sex parenthood and, specifically, gay fatherhood. Approaches that subvert heteronormative discourses embedded in fertility and reproduction are required to legitimise and support same-sex parent families.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.297 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture Health & SexualitySame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207