Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counterfeit and substandard medicines are a persistent threat to the global control and eradication of infectious diseases. The issue is particularly acute in developing countries due to the lack of local and international pharmaceutical surveillance networks that ultimately enables this industry to thrive . In this context, the inability to fulfill the fundamental right of individuals to access life-saving essential medicines is a critical public health challenge. Accordingly, this paper analyzes the crisis of counterfeit and substandard antimalarials in sub-Saharan Africa through a multidimensional framework. Of primary importance is the vulnerability of healthcare systems to market-driven forces which facilitates the emergence and sustainability of barriers in the access to high-quality antimalarials. Consequently, the proliferation of the informal drug market is contextualized by the dire need for affordable malaria treatment and cultural perceptions of the quality of care from formal sectors (e.g., clinics, hospitals). The impact of counterfeit antimalarials cannot be understated, ranging from increased morbidity, such as adverse effects from substandard product ingredients, to heightening the resistance of populations to the final line of antimalarial treatment (artemisinin-combination therapy). The ability of international humanitarian organizations and various levels of government to combat the issue of counterfeit medicines remains a daunting task, as the right to health has become a commodity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".