Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmaceuticals are one of the cornerstones of human development as their rational consumption can reduce morbidity and mortality rates and enhance the quality of life. Pharmaceuticals have curative and therapeutic qualities, so they cannot be considered as ordinary products. In line with this, ensuring public policy fosters access to medicines demands thoughtful and careful consideration, as it is often about whether a patient lives or dies. Despite the flow of international aid for pharmaceuticals, particularly used for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, there is a morally concerning drug gap globally; the World Health Organization (WHO) notes that one-third of the global population lacks regular access to essential medicines and that in some parts of Asia and Africa these figures are even more severe.(1) But what is troubling is that, despite the knowledge that we live in a world with inequitable access to medicines, we have not examined how we need to put in place policies that not only support drug access but also do not undermine it, which will be addressed later. What is promising, is that slowly, a paradigm shift is taking place. Access to essential medicines is increasingly viewed as a fundamental human right, with international human rights laws placing attendant obligations on states to ensure access.(2, 3) But governments also have to ensure that the policy environment is supportive of access to medicines. And this includes making sure that social policy is not undercut by economic interests.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".