Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Canada has recently emerged as a hotspot in a burgeoning global surrogacy bio‐economy. On the grounds that any commercial trade in reproductive capabilities would result in the exploitation of marginalised women willing to sell their eggs and wombs, Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHRA) bans commercial surrogacy, allowing only for altruistic arrangements. Drawing together analysis of the AHRA and related legal, regulatory, and policy documents, feminist political economic theory, and a growing body of critical social scientific scholarship on surrogacy, this paper troubles altruism as a means of insulating surrogacy from market‐based exploitation. It contributes to the extant literature an explicit focus on the law as a key site in the reproduction of the gendered division of labour. Acknowledging the serious concerns that dog commercial markets in reproductive biology, it argues that the legal constitution of gestational work as altruistic is part of a broader juridico‐economic apparatus that has systematically devalued reproductive labour under capitalism. Efforts to insulate surrogacy from the market by legally designating it as a gift freely given facilitate the ongoing appropriation of reproductive labour, which is assigned, once again, to the realm of non‐value. A feminist political‐economic critique of altruism, this paper does not forward an argument in favour of commercialisation. Rather, its aim is to upend the commercial/altruistic binary that has circumscribed so much of the thinking and legislating around surrogacy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.096 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".