MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7062337201

The trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) agreement and access to patented medicines in developing countries - Canada's Bill C-9

2006· other· en· W7062337201 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2006
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Power Generation Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyTRIPS AgreementTRIPS architectureDeveloping countryLicenseStatuteLegislatureGovernment (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TRIPS strengthened international patent protection, particularly in relation to pharmaceutical patents. A compulsory license mechanism is one of the exceptions from patent protection available under TRIPS. This mechanism applies mainly to domestic market supply. Underdeveloped countries with insufficient pharmaceutical manufacturing capacities are unable to use this exception to import medicines in public health emergencies. To resolve this problem, the WTO General Council’s decision allows the export of generic versions of patented drugs under certain conditions. Canada’s Bill C-9 was the first statute to implement the decision. Bill C-9 bears both humanitarian and TRIPS-like provisions. The role of the Government is unjustifiably limited to participation in administrative and legislative processes, while the main operators in the scheme are the generic manufacturer and partly, the patent holder. This thesis proposes several different models to transform the Bill into a workable system for the export of drugs to underdeveloped countries afflicted with pandemics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.152
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)Same topicAdvanced Power Generation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207