MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206564096 · doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpab182

The proposal for waiver of WTO’s TRIPS Agreement to prevent, contain and treat COVID-19: investigating the benefits and challenges for low- and middle-income countries

2021· article· en· W4206564096 on OpenAlex
Sanath Sameera Wijesinghe, Chaminya Jayashani Adikari, Ruwanthika Bar Ariyaratna

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaiverCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)TRIPS AgreementTRIPS architecture2019-20 coronavirus outbreakLow incomeSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)BusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthDemographic economicsLawDeveloping countryVirologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In October 2020, India and South Africa submitted a proposal to temporarily waive the provisions of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS Agreement)1 at the Council for TRIPS.2 This proposal aims to waive the member countries’ obligations to implement, apply and enforce the provisions relating to copyright, industrial designs, patents and undisclosed information for the prevention, containment and treatment of COVID-19.3 In other words, the TRIPS waiver would remove the intellectual property rights (IPRs)-related barriers to access COVID-19 vaccine and treatments worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs),4 minimising the vaccine gap between high-income countries and LMICs.5 LMICs, civil society organisations and global health and human rights advocates have embraced the implementation of a TRIPS waiver wholeheartedly.6 The traditional opponents to the TRIPS waiver—the multinational pharmaceutical companies (Big Pharma)—have shown their displeasure, and some high-income countries, including the USA, the UK, European Union, Australia and Canada, have challenged its implementation at the TRIPS Council.7 However, there is a growing tendency among some of these initially opposed high-income countries, including the USA and Canada, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) to offer limited support for TRIPS waiver.8 Indeed, the emerging concerns among global policy actors raise expectations that a TRIPS waiver will be implemented in the future.9 However, the TRIPS waiver alone would not ensure that all LMICs obtain equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, as LMICs are not homogenous regarding resource availability and financial capacity to produce or import vaccines. Especially, the TRIPS waiver is unlikely to work without the transfer of know-how or expertise relating to COVID-19 vaccines. Further, it is reasonable to foresee that Big Pharma may interfere with implementing a TRIPS waiver, particularly in LMICs.10 Therefore, there need to be specific mechanisms enabling LMICs to obtain the benefits of the proposed TRIPS waiver.11 Accordingly, this paper considers how global policy actors can enable LMICs to obtain the benefits of a TRIPS waiver.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.243 · 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