MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123172796 · doi:10.1016/s0020-7292(01)00425-8

Assisted reproduction developments in the Islamic world

2001· article· en· W3123172796 on OpenAlexaff
Gamal I. Serour, Bernard M. Dickens

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHuman reproductionGynecologyReproductionAssisted reproductive technologyIslamPopulationTransplantationReproductive technologyPregnancyFamily medicineInfertilityBiologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A November 2000 workshop organized by the International Islamic Center for Population Studies and Research, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, considered use of assisted reproduction technologies (ART) in the Islamic world. The workshop reinforced a 1997 recommendation that a Standing Committee for Shari'a Medical Ethics be constituted to monitor and assess developments in ART practice. Among issues the workshop addressed were equitable access to services for infertile couples of modest means, and regulation of standards of equipment and personnel that ART centers should satisfy to gain approval to offer services. Acceptable uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis were proposed, and follicular maturation research in animals, including in vitro maturation and in vitro growth of oocytes, was encouraged, leading to human applications. Embryo implantation following a husband's death, induced postmenopausal pregnancy, uterine transplantation and gene therapy were addressed and human reproductive cloning condemned, but cloning human embryos for stem cell research was considered acceptable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations71
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207