MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7017308464

Access to Assisted Conception: A Call for Legislative Reform in Light of the Modern Family (<i>Susan Doe v. Attorney General of Canada</i>)

2010· article· en· W7017308464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureJudgementOrder (exchange)Legislative intentLegislationFamily law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the impact of laws regarding assisted conception and the discriminatory effect these laws have in light of non-traditional family forms. Specifically, it considers the Processing and Distribution of Semen for Assisted Conception Regulations and how these regulations serve to exclude certain individuals who do not fit into the "traditional" nuclear family model. The author critiques the judgement of Susan Doe v. Attorney General of Canada and calls for legislative reform in order for the laws to accurately reflect realities of the family in the 21st century.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.040
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0320.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207