MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162775754

A Need to Know Basis? Canadian Federalism and the Disclosure of Egg and Sperm Donor Identities

2017· article· en· W3162775754 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matt Malone

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLegislationAnonymityJurisdictionPolitical scienceDonationSperm donationIdentity (music)LawGameteRight to knowFederalismSpermBiologyPoliticsGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, gamete donation can be known or anonymous. When a child is conceived using anonymously donated gametes, that child does not have a right to know the identity of their donor. Currently, there is no registry storing gamete donor information accessible to donor-conceived persons and no legislation or judicial precedent protecting a donor-conceived person's right to know the identity of their biological parent(s). With third party reproduction now regularly shifting the traditional outlines of family, these practices are increasingly attracting judicial oversight. This paper examines the consequences of the Supreme Court of Canada's Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, S.C. 2004, c. 2 (AHRA), which identified donor anonymity as a matter of provincial jurisdiction. This paper argues that the Supreme Court's decision defined the future of anonymous gamete donation in Canada by strongly protecting anonymity.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207