MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W157365614

Orphan drug policies: implications for the United States, Canada, and developing countries.

2004· article· en· W157365614 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiotechnology and Related Fields
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrphan drugLegislationLegislaturePolitical scienceValue (mathematics)Public administrationBusinessLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States’ Orphan Drug Act (“ODA”) has been hailed as “one of the most successful US legislative actions in recent history”. Although many countries, and governing bodies, have enacted Orphan Drug legislation in the past decade, the United States (US) was the first country to implement an official policy, primarily because of public pressure due to the lack of treatment options for rare disease sufferers in the US. For everyone who has espoused the virtues of the ODA in encouraging research into rare disease treatments, there are equal numbers of detractors who claim that it is a policy that serves mainly to promote private industry by allowing companies to charge outrageous prices for products that rare disease sufferers have no option but to purchase. While these are wildly divergent opinions, the true value of the ODA likely resides somewhere in between.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.217 · 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