A global social contract to ensure access to essential medicines and health technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
⇒ The COVID-19 pandemic illuminates the need to move away from the current social contract, which focuses on the nation-state's responsibility for protecting the health of its own population, including by providing essential medicines and health technologies.⇒ We argue for embracing a global social contract, which is a governance concept that lays the foundation for how states should act as members of the international community, as regulators of the private pharmaceutical industry and as guarantors of public goods benefiting people worldwide.⇒ A global social contract should be based on a set of four principles: collective state stewardship of the pharmaceutical and health technology; equity and the protection of health as a human right; an effective global polity; and governmental transparency and democratic accountability.⇒ This foundation can serve as a basis for a future pandemic treaty and as a model to address the much broader global crisis of inequitable access to medicines and health technologies for infectious and non-communicable diseases.
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 | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".