MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536737893 · doi:10.1080/17441692.2016.1245349

Geneva–Seattle collaboration in support of developing country vaccine manufacturing

2016· article· en· W2536737893 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Stevenson

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Public Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsBalsillie School of International Affairs
FundersCentre for International Governance InnovationBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsMultinational corporationDeveloping countryBusinessSupply chainPrivate sectorPublic healthEconomic growthMarketingFinanceEconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vaccines were once produced almost exclusively by state-supported entities. While they remain essential tools for public health protection, the majority of the world's governments have allowed industry to assume responsibility for this function. This is significant because while the international harmonisation of quality assurance standards have effectively increased vaccine safety, they have also reduced the number of developing country vaccine producers, and Northern multinational pharmaceutical companies have shown little interest in offering the range of low-priced products needed in low and middle-income-country contexts. This article examines how public-private collaboration is relevant to contemporary efforts aimed at strengthening developing country manufacturers' capacity to produce high-quality, low-priced vaccines. Specifically, it casts light on the important and largely complimentary roles of the World Health Organization, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Seattle-based non-profit PATH, in this process. The take away message is that external support remains critical to ensuring that developing country vaccine manufacturers have the tools needed to produce for both domestic and global markets, and the United Nations supply chain, and collaboration at the public-private interface is driving organisational innovation focused on meeting these goals.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Public HealthSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207