Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume L’augmentation des couts de medicaments et leur utilisation croissante dans un nombre important d’affections ont contribue a la mise en place de mecanismes favorisant un controle direct et indirect des couts et des prix de medicaments sur les marches. Au Canada, le Conseil d’examen du prix des medicaments brevetes contribue a ce controle en produisant chaque annee un rapport annuel qui offre un portrait interessant de la situation. Plus recemment, BIOTECanada a publie le premier rapport annuel de cette association des manufacturiers de medicaments et produits issus de biotechnologie. L’objectif de cet article est de situer brievement les mecanismes de controle de prix a l’etranger et au Canada, et de presenter le Conseil d’examen du prix des medicaments brevetes et les principaux faits saillants sur le marche canadien des medicaments en 1998, incluant le secteur des biotechnologies. Abstract The cost increases of medicine and the increasing use of drugs in an important number of diseases have contributed to the setting up of mechanisms encouraging direct an indirect control of medicine costs and prices on the markets. In Canada, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) contributes to that control by producing an annual report that presents an interesting picture of the situation. More recently, BIOTECanada published the first annual report of this association of manufacturers producing drugs and products resulting from biotechnology. The objective of this article is to briefly relate the price control mechanisms in foreign countries and in Canada, and present the PMPRB and main highlights on the Canadian drug market in 1998, including the biotechnology sector.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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.
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".