Le débat bioéthique et juridique sur la reproduction médicalement assistée: une étude sur l’expérience canadienne et brésilienne.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente estudo trata da experiência canadense e brasileira no âmbito da Bioética, em relação à formulação jurídica concernente à intervenção da ciência na reprodução humana. A análise dos aspectos éticos, sociais e jurídicos dos progressos das pesquisas genéticas permite um aprofundamento das discussões sobre uma futura lei brasileira que venha a regular o recurso às técnicas de reprodução assistida no país.Résumé: Cette étude porte sur l’expérience canadienne et brésilienne dans le domaine de la bioéthique par rapport à l’encadrement juridique concernant l’intervention de la science dans la reproduction humaine. L’analyse des enjeux éthiques, sociaux et juridiques de la recherche génétique offre une importante source d’informations pour les discussions autour des lois canadienne et brésilienne concernant les techniques de reproduction médicalement assistée.
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 | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".