Ontario pharmacists concerned about the risks arising from approval of generic OxyContin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontario pharmacists concerned about the risks arising from approval of generic OxyContin T he federal government's approval of generic versions of OxyContin is a matter of great concern to the Ontario Pharmacists' Association (OPA), which fears it will worsen the public health crisis related to narcotic abuse and misuse, and lead to a resurgence in pharmacy armed robberies and break-ins.Health Canada approved 6 generic versions of the drug on November 27, 2012 -just one day after the expiration of Purdue Pharma's patent for oxycodone, the active ingredient in OxyContin.All the provincial and territorial premiers, along with many health professionals, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the OPA, had urged the federal government to delay such authorization until a complete review of the risks could be undertaken.However, the federal minister of health, Leona Aglukkaq, said she is required by law not to withhold approval for a drug otherwise considered safe and effective for its intended use.To do so, she said, would undermine the integrity of Health Canada's scientific review process.That view is narrow and short-sighted, says Allan Malek, Senior Vice President, Professional Affairs, Drug Information & Continuing Education with the OPA."Prescription drugs can't be viewed as commodities; just because a patent expires doesn't mean we should give the go-ahead to generics."The OPA believes the review process should be overhauled to take a more holistic view, " he adds."There are social impacts from these kinds of drugs and that should be part of the consideration."
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".