MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064179817 · doi:10.1038/clpt.2013.95

Legal Foundations of Adaptive Licensing

2013· article· en· W2064179817 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersHealth CanadaEuropean Commission
KeywordsStatuteReimbursementAgency (philosophy)Food and drug administrationInspector generalClinical pharmacologyDrug approvalLawBusinessPolitical sciencePublic administrationPharmacologyMedicineDrugHealth careAccountingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In April 2012, MIT's Center for Biomedical Innovation and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) cosponsored a workshop on legal foundations of adaptive pharmaceuticals licensing. Past and present attorneys from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the EMA, and Health Sciences Agency Singapore (HSA) found that existing statutes provided authority for adaptive licensing (AL). By contrast, an attorney from Health Canada identified gaps in authority. Reimbursement during initial phases of adaptive approaches to licensing was deemed consistent with existing statutes in all jurisdictions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.305 · 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