Il primo parere consultivo della CEDU su richiesta di un giudice nazionale e l’ordinamento giuridico italiano
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essay examines the first advisory opinion rendered by the European Court of Human Rights under Protocol No. 16 to the ECHR upon request of the French Cour de Cassation (just a few months after Protocol No. 16 entered into force). The opinion concerns the issue of the recognition of a legal parent-child relationship established abroad, with regard to the intended-non biological mother of two twin sisters who were born in the United States as a result of a gestational surrogacy arrangement. The agreement had been entered into by a French, heterosexual, married couple. Only the intended father was genetically linked to the minors. The paper firstly addresses the nature of the advisory opinion by briefly describing the major characteristics of the new procedural mechanism, under the specific perspective of the future (and still uncertain) Italian ratification of the instrument. It then examines the merits of the case. It finally attempts to evaluate the implications of the principles of law affirmed by the Court in the Italian legal order. In that regard, the essay assesses the consistency between the opinion and a recent judgment of the Italian Court of Cassation refusing recognition, on public policy grounds, of a Canadian judgment, which conferred legal parentage to the intended-non biological father of two minors born in Ontario through gestational surrogacy in the context of a male same-sex married couple (judgment No. 12193 of 8 May 2019).
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
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".