Gamete Donor Anonymity in Canada: An Overview of Potential Policy Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, sperm and egg donation — collectively referred to as gamete donation — can be known or anonymous. A child conceived using anonymously donated gametes does not presently have a right to know the identity of his or her donor. Currently, there is no registry for storing gamete donor information that is accessible to donor-conceived persons, and there is no legislation or judicial precedent protecting a donor-conceived persons’ right to know the identity of his or her biological parent(s). With third party reproduction now shifting the traditional outlines of family, these practices are attracting increasingly more judicial oversight. This scrutiny persistently brings new families created by assisted reproductive technology (ART) into the spotlight, but at the same time it produces vulnerabilities that the law has ignored or relegated to private parties. The disclosure of identities of participants is one such area. This paper focuses on one area of potential conflict in third party reproductive law: gamete donor identity disclosure. It examines the history of gamete donor anonymity in Canada, and assesses potential policy approaches to this fraught issue.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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".