Notions of Reproductive Harm in Canadian Law: Addressing Exposures to Household Chemicals as Reproductive Torts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mounting scientific evidence is suggesting that various synthetic chemicals are ubiquitous in the household and natural environment, and are affecting reproductive health in humans. Yet litigation in response to exposure to harmful chemicals has had limited success. This is in large part because causation is often difficult to prove, as exposure often occurs over long periods of time, and the sources of suspected chemical agents are ubiquitous and/or diffuse. In light of these challenges, there is a need to consider new legal strategies to confront these harms. This article examines the potential for prenatal exposure to harmful chemicals to be approached as reproductive torts as opposed to toxic torts. Focusing on two groups of household chemicals – brominated flame retardants and phthalates – this article identifies the ways in which prenatal injury claims and birth torts (i.e. wrongful pregnancy, wrongful birth, and wrongful life cases) can inform future litigation regarding prenatal exposures to risky household chemicals. In particular, reproductive tort jurisprudence offers a variety of ways of conceptualizing causation, injury and fault in cases where individuals are exposed to synthetic household chemicals before birth.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".