MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963963436 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041446

Transparency in drug regulation: Mirage or oasis?

2004· article· en· W1963963436 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joel Lexchin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)ConfidentialityDrugAuditComputer scienceBusinessComputer securityInternet privacyAccountingRisk analysis (engineering)MedicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, the information used to approve new drugs is deemed commercially sensitive and hence confidential under the Access to Information Act,[1][1] and the Therapeutic Products Directorate (TPD) will not release such information without the manufacturer's approval. As a consequence, safety and

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.175
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.175
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0110.063
Scholarly communication0.0330.047
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0400.055
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207