The Maple Peril: From Presidential Policy to Pharmaceutical Importation, 1992-Present
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2001, the safety of drugs purchased from other countries, especially Canada, became a major policy issue in the United States. A political and geographical line was drawn in the sand separating Canadian and American drugs. Canadian drugs were characterized as dangerous—"a maple peril." This article explores the practice of cross-border drug reimportation and considers the Bush and Clinton administration's policies regarding the necessary balance between drug access, affordability, and safety. This paper suggests continuity rather than change typified these policies. It connects business, economic, and political history with public policy and it aims to furnish an interdisciplinary overview of the legislative and executive branches, as well pharmaceutical firms and consumers. En 2001, la sécurité des médicaments achetés d'autres pays, et particulièrement du Canada, est devenue une question majeure de politique aux États-Unis. On a tracé dans le sable une ligne politique et géographique pour séparer les médicaments canadiens des médicaments américains. Les médicaments canadiens ont été jugés dangereux—un « péril érable ». Le présent article examine la pratique de la réimportation transfrontaliè re, ainsi que les politiques des administrations Bush et Clinton en ce qui a trait à l'équilibre entre l'accès aux médicaments, leur abordabilité et leur sécurité. Le présent article suggère la continuité plutô t que le changement caractérisé par ces politiques. Le Péril érable associe histoire commerciale, économique et politique aux politiques publiques, et il vise à fournir un aperçu interdisciplinaire des pouvoirs législatifs et exécutifs, ainsi que des entreprises pharmaceutiques et des consommateurs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".