La procréation assistée au Québec: de la science de laboratoire au service public
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Science has made tremendous progress over the last years in the area of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, which has changed our traditional vision of maternity and family. The Quebec government has adopted in 2010 the Act respecting clinical and research activities related to assisted procreation, which offers to its citizens a complete access to the techniques as if they had a subjective and absolute right to them. Being perceived as a public service, assisted procreation now belongs to the Public Health domain, and is therefore of interest to the whole society, since it has become a collective issue. This observation originates from two phenomena: The first being that the Quebec law is based on the main North American ethical norms: autonomy, beneficience, non maleficience and justice. The second on is the medicalization of infertility. Following this analysis, the Quebec law will be criticized and particularly, the way the underlying ethical principles have been interpreted to serve only individualistic and utilitarian interests, to the detriment of women's health. Contrary to what has been adopted by the French society, we will see that the Quebec legislator has failed to address the long term consequences of the law on the whole society and to lead a public reflection before its adoption.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.007 |
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".