Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian lawmakers and scholars have long expressed concern about surrogacy arrangements. They have worried that surrogates will be ill-informed of their legal rights. They have argued that surrogacy contracts will favour the intended parents’ interests. They have also feared that surrogates will change their minds and will wish to keep the children they carry. This article presents and discusses results from qualitative interviews with twenty-six Canadian lawyers who advise and represent surrogates and intended parents. Lawyers offer new insight into the legal advice they provide to surrogates, the content of surrogacy contracts, and the disputes they have seen arise between surrogates and intended parents. Their narratives show that some of the concerns that lawmakers and scholars have had about surrogacy arrangements are warranted; however, they also provide a more nuanced and complicated account of what lawyers are doing and seeing in their practices. These interviews suggest that, while surrogates may be vulnerable, they may also be afforded more protection, and may exercise greater agency and power, than has been traditionally assumed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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".