MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193359502 · doi:10.1162/rest_a_01253

Licensing Life-Saving Drugs for Developing Countries: Evidence from the Medicines Patent Pool

2022· article· en· W3193359502 on OpenAlexafffund
Alberto Galasso, Mark Schankerman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Review of Economics and Statistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaLondon School of Economics and Political Science
KeywordsBusinessDeveloping countryPublic economicsEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study the effects of the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP)—an institution that pools patents across geographical markets—on the licensing and adoption of life-saving drugs in low- and middle-income countries. We show the presence of an immediate and large increase in licensing when a patent is included in the MPP. We also show evidence that the pool increases actual entry and volume of sales, but these impacts are much smaller than on licensing, which is due to the geographic bundling of licenses. The paper highlights the potential of pools in promoting diffusion of biomedical innovation in developing countries.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.089 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Review of Economics and StatisticsSame topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207