Évaluation comparative de l’accès aux réponses et de leur qualité, lorsque des questions sont adressées en français et en anglais à des sociétés pharmaceutiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: Quebec-based pharmaceutical companies are interested in the legal aspects related to the provision of information in French. This study compared access to and quality of answers to questions posed to pharmaceutical companies by telephone in both French and English. Method: In this controlled, prospective study of 50 Canadian drug companies, 4 standard questions were used. Access to information was evaluated on the basis of comprehension of the language used during the call and the total duration of each call. The quality of responses was evaluated according to the adequacy of information supplied to the particular question. Results: In May and June 2005, a total of 400 calls were made, 200 in French and 200 in English. For 84% of the French calls and 96% of the English calls, a representative was readily available (p < 0.001). In 25% of the calls, the representative did not understand French, but there were no calls in which the representative did not understand English (p < 0.001). In 4 instances, the representative simply hung up because he or she did not understand the caller. The total duration of calls, the adequacy of the answers provided, and the number of representatives reached did not differ significantly between the languages. Conclusion: Although the quality of answers was identical for questions posed in both languages, it was more difficult to access information in French than in English. RESUME Objectif : Les societes pharmaceutiques etablies au Quebec doivent tenir compte des dispositions legislatives relatives a l’information fournie en francais. Nous avons compare l’acces aux reponses ainsi que la qualite des reponses aux questions adressees en francais et en anglais par telephone a des societes pharmaceutiques. Methode : Etude experimentale comparative et prospective aupres de cinquante laboratoires pharmaceutiques au Canada au moyen de quatre questions types. L’acces est evalue en fonction de la comprehension de la langue utilisee au cours de l’appel et de la duree totale des appels. La qualite est evaluee en fonction du degre d’adequation de la reponse donnee avec la question posee. Resultats : En mai et en juin 2005, nous avons effectue 400 appels, soit 200 appels telephoniques en francais et 200 appels telephoniques en anglais. Dans 84 % des appels passes en francais, un interlocuteur etait immediatement disponible, contre 96 % des appels passes en anglais (p < 0,001). L’interlocuteur ne comprenait pas le francais dans 25 % des cas, contre aucun cas d’incomprehension en anglais (p < 0,001). A quatre reprises, le locuteur francais s’est fait raccrocher au nez, car l’interlocuteur ne le comprenait pas. La duree totale des appels, le degre d’adequation finale de la reponse ainsi que le nombre d’interlocuteurs joints ne different pas statistiquement d’une langue a l’autre. Conclusion : Si la qualite des reponses est finalement identique, l’information est plus difficilement accessible en francais qu’en anglais.
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 | 0.035 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".