Bibliographic record
Abstract
The annual report of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board indicates that manufacturers' total sales of pharmaceuticals reached $11.5 billion in Canada in 2001, a 15% increase over the previous year. In 2001, patented drugs accounted for 65% of total drug sales, compared with 44% in 1995. Their sales increased by 18.9% in 2001, to $7.5 billion. Drug expenditures continue to be the fastest growing component of health care spending and are estimated to have accounted for 15.2% of total spending in 2001. (Physicians' fees accounted for 13.5%.) Increases in drug spending are affected by factors such as changes in total population, demographics, prices, retail markups, prescribing habits, utilization of drugs per patient, trends in new drug therapies and new diseases. Overall, prices rose by only 0.1% between 2000 and 2001. This continues a pattern of either negative or very small increases since 1993, according to data compiled for the patented medicine price index (PMPI), which measures the average year-over-year change in the prices of patented drugs sold in Canada. In contrast, the consumer price index increased by 2.6% in 2001; its rate of increase has exceeded the PMPI's rate every year since 1993. Relative to other countries, Canadian prices have been below the international median since 1994 by levels ranging from 5% to 12%. — Lynda Buske, Associate Director of Research, CMA
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.028 |
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".