Product Listing Agreements (PLAs): A New Tool for Reaching Quebec's Pharmaceutical Policy Objectives?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Product listing agreements (PLAs) with pharmaceutical manufacturers are increasingly viewed as an innovative and useful tool in the effort to control drug expenditures. To date, Quebec is the only province that has been reluctant to enter into such agreements, arguing that their confidential nature may lead to a disparity in coverage between individuals covered by the public plan and those covered by private insurance. While PLAs may, in fact, present such a risk, in this paper we will argue that when used correctly, these agreements are actually tools that could help attain all four of the objectives set out in Quebec's policy on medications, namely: (a) improved access to drugs, (b) fair and reasonable drug pricing, (c) optimal drug use and (d) maintaining a dynamic biopharmaceutical industry in Quebec.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".