MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084964497 · doi:10.3366/ajicl.2013.0062

Rwanda's New Intellectual Property Law and Compulsory Licensing for Export Under the WTO: Not Quite a Panacea

2013· article· en· W2084964497 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marumo Nkomo

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of International and Comparative Law · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyPanacea (medicine)TRIPS architectureInternational tradeOrder (exchange)BusinessTRIPS AgreementInternational trade lawAccess to medicinesLawPolitical scienceLaw and economicsEconomicsEngineeringFinanceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In September 2008, Rwanda imported 26,000 packs of TriAvir from Canada. In doing so, the East African state became the first importing country to make use of and benefit from the World Trade Organization (WTO) procedure painstakingly negotiated to resolve the conflict between intellectual property rights (IPRs) standards under the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and access to medicines. Before the importation could occur, Apotex, a Canadian producer of generic medicines, had to successfully navigate a difficult and time-consuming process under Canadian patent laws. This was necessary in order to legally attain a compulsory licence to manufacture and export a generic fixed-dosed combination of three patented medicines used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS. The Apotex–Rwanda case is to date the only example of countries successfully using the 30 August Decision. The legal and administrative rigours in Canada’s compulsory licence for export regime have been cited by scholars and industry as key factors explaining the paucity in utilisation of the system which came into force in Canada more than seven years ago.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of International and Comparative LawSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207