MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411823677 · doi:10.1080/26410397.2025.2524970

The right to science in sexual and reproductive health and the legal status of the human embryo

2025· article· en· W4411823677 on OpenAlexaff
Silke Dyer, Alison Edelman, Asha George, Tari Turner, Joanna N. Erdman

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual and Reproductive Health Matters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductive healthEmbryoLegal statusReproductive biologyBiologyPolitical scienceSociologyDemographyLawEmbryogenesisCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through the examination of scientific evidence related to human embryo development, the aim of this commentary is to support the right to science in sexual and reproductive health, to outline why science supports a legal approach to embryos as the biological material of human life but not as human persons, and to recognise that international human rights law adopts this approach in the protection of sexual and reproductive health and rights.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.060
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0320.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.326 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual and Reproductive Health MattersSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207