La rationalité organisationnelle: Une explication possible de l'état de la politique canadienne en matière de brevets pharmaceutiques?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present thesis seeks to shed new light on the reasons explaining the state of the Canadian policy on pharmaceutical patents (hereinafter the “Canadian Policy”) as well as on its normative shortcomings. A better understanding of the reasons underlying its existence will enable those who wish to suggest ways of updating it, to improve their viability with the Canadian government. The shortcomings of the Canadian policy on pharmaceutical patents are reflected in its sub optimal character which, in turn, leads to a failure by the Canadian Policy to maximize collective interest. Our analysis of the state of the Canadian Policy is based on theoretical analysis parameters that we have grouped under the heading “Theory of Organizational Rationality”. Essentially, we argue that the Canadian Policy results from a bargaining process between rational agents endowed with varying levels of influence on the Canadian government's final decision while the government is itself a rational agent involved in the Canadian Policy's creation process. For this reason, we submit that the Canadian Policy will only maximize collective interest if said interest is represented by an influential organization at the bargaining table.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".