Bibliographic record
Abstract
After 5 years of decreasing prices, the Patented Medicine Price Index (PMPI) showed an increase of 0.2% in 1999. The last increase was recorded in 1993, when prices rose by 0.1%. In 1999, Canada‚s Consumer Price Index registered an increase of 1.7%. The PMPI , which includes only drugs used by humans, measures the average change from the previous year in the average transaction prices of patented drug products sold in Canada. The data are collected by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, an independent federal tribunal that has a mandate to ensure that prices of patented medicines are not excessive. A Statistics Canada index that tracks all pharmaceuticals (both patented and nonpatented) showed a 0.8% price increase for 1999. This Canadian result can be compared with that from a similarly constructed index in the United States that, for the same period, recorded an increase of 3.7%. Drugs as a percentage of all health expenditures continue to rise steadily, reaching a level of 15.2% in 1999. Factors that affect total spending on drugs include changes in total population, changes in utilization of drugs per patient and new types of treatment. In 1999, patented drugs accounted for 61% of all drugs sold in Canada. Another 30% of sales involved nonpatented brand-name drugs, with the remaining 9% of sales accounted for by generic drugs. At the end of 1999, manufacturers‚ total sales of drugs for humans stood at $8.9 billion in Canada, a 16.8% increase from 1998. —
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.050 |
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".