Surrogate mothethood: Comparison with legislation in French speaking countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surrogacy is a very current and controversial issue resonating in almost all countries. It is a method of assisted reproduction that is used in most states primarily to treat infertility, but in some it is also available to homosexual couples. Surrogacy is sometimes considered unethical, immoral or against the natural course of nature, especially in its commercial form. The legal regulation of surrogacy and its various forms varies between countries for cultural or historical reasons, but can be divided into three categories. States permitting, states pro- hibiting and states not regulating surrogacy. The aim of this thesis is to compare the legal regulation of surrogacy in selected countries with the legal regulation in the Czech Republic. The thesis compares the legislation in Bel- gium, France and Quebec. Each of these countries has a different approach to surrogacy as such and to its regulation. France is one of the states that prohibit surrogacy, Quebec is one of the states where surrogacy is not explicitly regulated but where surrogacy contracts are null and void, and Belgium is one of the states where surrogacy is in a grey area but where repeated efforts can be seen to establish clear legislation. The thesis also discusses court decisions in individual states that address the most com- mon...
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".