Corporate Selective Reporting Of Clinical Drug Trial Results As A Violation Of The Right To Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The industry practice of selectively reporting clinical drug trial results and related information is of great significance when considered in the context of disability rights. This chapter provides an overview of the domestic regulatory framework and an analysis of its limitations. It describes a layer of complexity by situating the industry conduct at issue within the context of corporate law theory. The chapter addresses how persons with disabilities, and the public interest organizations that represent them, can employ human rights principles to advance their fundamental rights. It discusses how in struggling for reform Canadian advocates might advance a litigation strategy that relies on the international human rights framework. The chapter argues that the right to health as found in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) can be of assistance in attempting to achieve a judicial declaration of the current regulatory regime's unlawfulness. Keywords: Canadian advocates; Clinical drug trial; corporate law theory; domestic regulatory framework; ICESCR; international human rights framework; right to health; selective reporting
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 | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".