Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. The Comparative Policy Design Perspective 2. Belgium: A Bioethical Paradise? 3. ART Policy in Italy: Explaining the Lack of Comprehensive Regulation 4. Policy Networks, Federalism and Managerial Ideas: How ART Non-Decision in Canada Safeguards the Autonomy of the Medical Profession 5. The United States: National Talk and State Action in Governing ART 6. ART in Spain: Technocratic Inheritance and Modernist Aspirations 7. United Kingdom: Regulation Through a National Licensing Authority 8. France: Protecting Human Dignity While Encouraging Scientific Progress 9. The Netherlands: Conflict and Consensus on Assisted Reproductive Technology Policy 10. Germany: ART Policies as Embryo Protection 11. Switzerland: Policy Design and Direct Democracy 12. Legislation for Protection: Why Norway Designed Restrictive Policies in the Field of ART 13. Comparing Policy Design Across Countries: What Accounts for Variation in ART Policy?
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.004 |
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".