Equity in rhetoric and (in)action: a thematic analysis of Canada’s approach to intellectual property rights in pandemics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian federal government has consistently emphasized its commitment to global health equity. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath, Canada repeatedly resisted measures designed to promote equitable and timely global access to medicines through intellectual property (IP) sharing. This research study employs a qualitative, document-based thematic analysis to examine how Canada's rhetorical commitments to equity intersected with its policy actions across three key cases: Canada's Patent Act flexibilities surrounding the COVID-19 World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Waiver; Bolivia and Biolyse's efforts to navigate Canada's Access to Medicines Regime and the World Health Assembly's intergovernmental negotiating body's efforts to draft a treaty for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Across these cases, we find that Canadian representatives strategically advanced a narrow conception of equity centred on inclusion and gender, while sidelining intellectual property reform and the structural conditions of access. We conclude by outlining three policy recommendations for Canada to better align its commitment to equity with action on encouraging access to life-saving medicines.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".