Shifting priorities at the Health Protection Branch: challenges to the regulatory process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The Health Protection Branch (hpb) of Health Canada has recently undergone considerable policy and organizational renewal, with numerous and broad‐ranging implications for the evaluation of drug product safety and efficacy. From a public‐health perspective, however, the criteria used to develop organizational and policy change at the hpb have provided a sub‐optimal basis for reform, due primarily to the many forms of market failure to which the regulation of pharmaceuticals is subject. For example, thepartnership andefficiency criteria that guided policy renewal have led to the transfer of important responsibilities to partners, with the potential for either a conflict of interest or inadequate information, for which the legal basis is not always clear. The resulting realignment of the hpb's roles and responsibilities may be characterized as leading to a shift from a comprehensive approach to public‐health protection to one based on strategic risk management, with responsibilities dispersed among government, industry, academia and consumers. The rebalancing of goals in the redesign of the regulatory process suggests a change in the role of the state in the context of public‐health protection and highlights issues of concern to the public interest that may not be fully recognized as deregulation occurs in other sectors of the economy. Sommaire: La Direction générale de la protection de la santé (dgps) de Santé Canada vient de subir un vaste remaniement de politiques et d'organisation qui entraîne de nombreuses et profondes répercussions sur l'évaluation de la sûreté et de l'efficacité des produits pharmaceutiques. Cependant, du point de vue de la santé publique, les critères auxquels on a fait appel pour modifier les politiques et l'organisation de la dgps n'ont permis qu'une base de réforme sous‐optimale, à cause surtout des nom‐breux genres de défaillance du marché qui affligent la réglementation des produits pharmaceutiques. Par exemple, les critières depurtenariat etd'efficacité qui ont guidé le remaniement des politiques ont amené le transfert d'importantes responsabilites à des partenaires moyennant le risque de. conflit d'intérêts ou d'informations inadéqaates, sans pour autant assurer une base juridique Claire. On pourrait donc dire que cette réorientation des rôles et responsabilités de la dgps fait que l'on passe d'une approche globale en matière de protection de la santéà une gestion stratégique du risque, la responsabilité en étant dispersée parmi le gouvernement, l'industrie, les milieux universitaires et les consommateurs. Le rééquilibrage des objectifs dans le remaniement du processus de réglementation suggère une évolution du rôle de l'État en ce qui concerne la protection de la santé publique; il met aussi en relief des questions d'intérêt public qui n'ont peut‐être pas été reconnues alors que la déréglementation prend lieu dans d'autres secteurs économiques.
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 | 0.188 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.063 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.049 | 0.057 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".