Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2004, Canada's Parliament passed the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Fully in force by 2007, the act was intended to safeguard and promote the health, safety, dignity, and rights of Canadians. However, a 2010 Supreme Court of Canada decision ruled that key parts of the act were invalid. Regulating Creation is a collection of essays built around various components of the 2010 ruling. Featuring contributions by Canadian and international scholars, it offers a variety of perspectives on the role of law in dealing with the legal, ethical, and policy issues surrounding changing reproductive technologies. The book is divided in three parts. Part 1 contains a detailed discussion of the case and of constitutional and federalism issues. Part 2 discusses family law and children right's perspectives of assisted human reproduction. The chapters in Part 3 elaborate on concerns around commodification, commercialization, and access to reproductive services and goods. In addition to the in-depth analysis of the Canadian case the volume reflects on how other countries, particularly the U.S., U.K. and New Zealand regulate these same issues. Combining a detailed discussion of legal approaches with an in-depth exploration of societal implications, Regulating Creation deftly navigates the obstacles of legal policy amidst the rapid current of reproductive technological innovation. The introductory chapter briefly discusses the various chapters and situates the chapters in the context of current discussions around Assisted Human Reproduction.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.324 | 0.168 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".