MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380202881 · doi:10.34172/hpp.2023.05

Access to medicines through global health diplomacy

2023· review· en· W4380202881 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Perspectives · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsBruyèreUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEssential medicinesAccess to medicinesDiplomacyGlobal healthBusinessSustainable developmentRight to healthQuality (philosophy)Economic growthHealth careMedicinePolitical scienceDeveloping countryLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Health Organisation (WHO) emphasizes that equitable access to safe and affordable medicines is vital to attaining the highest possible standard of health by all. Ensuring equitable access to medicines (ATM) is also a key narrative of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as SDG 3.8 specifies "access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all" as a central component of universal health coverage (UHC). The SDG 3.b emphasizes the need to develop medicines to address persistent treatment gaps. However, around 2 billion people globally have no access to essential medicines, particularly in lower- and middle-income countries. The states' recognition of health as a human right obligates them to ensure access to timely, acceptable, affordable health care. While ATM is inherent in minimizing the treatment gaps, global health diplomacy (GHD) contributes to addressing these gaps and fulfilling the state's embracement of health as a human right.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.010

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 head0.743
GPT teacher head0.642
Teacher spread0.101 · 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