Political regimes and vaccine procurement policies during the Covid-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this analysis, is to understand where from did countries with different democracy levels procure vaccines, what countries took part in vaccine diplomacy and vaccine nationalism and what countries with different democracy levels have interacted with each other regards to vaccine procurement. The analysis was conducted categorizing nine countries – Estonia, Canada, Japan, Hungary, Brazil, Indonesia, China, Cuba and Russia, based on their democracy level, subsequently finding how these countries’ governments procured vaccines or exported them and finally analysing the findings. \nEstonia, Canada and Japan in the Democratic group category, procured vaccines exclusively from private pharmaceutical companies, because these private companies were transparent in their clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. Countries in this group would not procure vaccines from foreign state-owned enterprises, because that would indicate support for that government. \nHungary, Brazil and Indonesia in the Flawed Democracy group, were most likely to procure vaccines from private pharmaceutical companies and from foreign state-owned enterprises. This is due to lower standards on transparency during clinical trials and on the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. Flawed Democracy group is the receiver part of vaccine diplomacy. \nChina, Cuba and Russia in the Nondemocratic group, were most likely to develop, approve and manufacture vaccines exclusively from their respective state-owned or local enterprises, due to protectionism. China and Russia valued more exporting vaccines, than vaccinating their populations, while Cuba determined on vaccinating their public.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".