Bibliographic record
Abstract
The decision of the Supreme court of Canada in Winnipeg Child and family Services v. G. (D .F) raises the controversial issue of the foetus legal status and the appropriate legal protection to be given to him while in the womb. Currently, the canadian legal system doesn't consider the unborn as a human being, and consequently, deprive him, until its birth, of the advantages associated with the juridical personality, such as the right to !ife. Can the law protect the foetus without eroding the rights women fought so hard to win ? This essay try to answer this question. In a first part, the author describes prenatals interventions which contribute to individualise the unborn from his mother. In a second part, he argues that the traditional condition to be born alive and viable to get juridical personality is obsolete in regard to medecine prenatals developments . Then, considering the contradictory fictions of civil law about the unborn, he suggests, like a certain doctrine does , that the foetus should get juridical personality right from his conception. In a third part, the author demonstrates that it is possible to elaborate a legal regime that would take into account the rights and freedoms of pregnant women while protecting those of the foetus .
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 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".