MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2061996525 · doi:10.3821/145.6.cpj247

Supreme Court of Canada to Hear Pharmacy Challenges to Ontario Ban on Private-Label Generics

2012· article· en· W2061996525 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kathie Lynas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtPharmacyLawMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The legal fight between the Ontario government and 2 pharmacy chains over generic drug regulations is heading to Canada's highest court. In a ruling on August 30, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada revealed its decision to hear 2 appeals on the issue — one from Shoppers Drug Mart and the other from the owners of the Rexall chain, the Katz Group of Companies. The battle between the 2 companies and the Ontario government dates back to 2010, when the province implemented new generic drug regulations, that among other measures, banned pharmacies from selling their own private-label generic drugs. The province maintained private-label generics would reduce competitiveness and drive up prices. Shoppers and the Katz Group launched a legal challenge before the Ontario Divisional Court and they won the first round. In February 2011, the court ruled that the province went too far with the ban on store-brand generics. That ruling was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which ruled in favour of the provincial government in December 2011 — restoring the prohibition on private-label generic drug products. The Supreme Court of Canada is expected to hear the appeals in May 2013.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0410.009
Scholarly communication0.0140.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0280.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada→Same topicTaxation and Legal Issues→French-language works237,207→