The right to health, the TRIPS agreement and the public health safeguards to encourage the universal access to essential medicines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The privileges arising from patent protection on pharmaceutical products often prevent the full realization of the right to health, especially in developing countries with scarce resources. This thesis first identifies the international agreements that have established the right to health in international law, obligations and violations associated with it, the problems encountered in the implementation of human rights on the field, compared with the implementation and sanctions associated with economic rights from the World Trade Organization regulatory framework. A comparative study of the legislative frameworks of both developed and developing countries will reveal to what extent Canada, the United States, the European Union, Brazil, India, and South Africa conformed with patent protection exceptions arising from international patent law to protect public health. Finally, the author identifies the crucial indicators that need to be considered in order to assess the conformity of a given approach with the right to health, before he underscores the temporary character of the relevant WTO measures, and the future stakes concerning an increased access to essential medicines.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".