Chapter 4. The Making of the World’s Most Lenient Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
U nlimited" was a category of the number of embryos to transfer (NET) in the International Federation of Fertility Societies (IFFS) report in 2001 (Jones and Cohen 2001)."Unlimited" indicates the absence of guideline for NET.The IFFS reported that among thirty-nine countries surveyed, more than half had guidelines or statutes to limit NET.Taiwan was included in that report, under the category "unlimited," with "< 6" supplied in parentheses, meaning that the customary NET was fewer than six (ibid.: S12)."Fewer than six" may have looked extreme in comparison with those countries doing double embryo transfer, but it may in fact have been an underestimate in Taiwan, for according to Taiwan's national registry data, in 2000 nearly 20 percent of cycles were implanted with six, seven, eight, or nine embryos (ROC Department of Health 2003).Canada and Greece also reported "unlimited" NET, with "< 6" again supplied in parentheses.In contrast, as chapters 1 and 2 have shown, Sweden, the UK, Belgium, and Japan had moved to a maximum of two or three embryos transferred as early as the 2000s, with enforcement from the state or medical society.Taiwan did not build any guideline on NET until 2005, and it has been revised three times since then.Although Taiwan is no longer listed under the category "unlimited," its NET guidelines have been one of the most lenient in the world.This chapter analyzes the making of the NET guideline in Taiwan.How did Taiwan start the NET regulation?Who are the key stake-
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
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".