The Quest for Liquid Gold: Why Canada Should Provide Remuneration for Plasma Donations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plasma is a protein rich component of blood that is used for lifesaving transfusions and as an essential treatment for individuals with hemophilia and immunodeficiency conditions. Canada has historically relied on a national system of non-remunerated blood donation to collect blood plasma. However, over the past several decades, Canada has become increasingly reliant on purchasing plasma products from countries with plasma remuneration systems to meet increasing demand. Unfortunately, this system is no longer able to consistently accommodate the rapidly growing need for plasma products in Canada. To address the shortage of plasma products, it is time for Canada to re-evaluate the merits of a paid plasma system. Providing remuneration for plasma in Canada is a promising solution for several reasons. First, there is extensive evidence supporting the safety of paid plasma. Second, many countries have implemented successful plasma remuneration programs that have increased the supply of plasma without harming donation rates for whole blood. Third, while the ethical concerns of donor well-being cannot be fully remedied, they can be ameliorated. Instead of relying on other countries to maintain high ethical standards for plasma donors, Canada can take responsibility for plasma donors by constructing a system that addresses issues of consent, while carefully screening and monitoring to ensure donors maintain good health.
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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".