© 1997 Canadian Medical Association (text and abstract/résumé) Regulating pharmaceutical advertising: What will work?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AS DR. JOEL LEXCHIN MAKES PAINFULLY OBVIOUS in this issue (see pages 351 to 356), reg-ulatory processes governing pharmaceutical advertising in Canada and elsewhere are seriously compromised. However, the remedial measures Lexchin proposes are not sufficient. Financial sanctions against improper advertising are likely to be re-garded by manufacturers as the cost of doing business, and any regulatory body that includes drug industry representatives or individuals receiving financial support from the drug industry cannot be genuinely independent. Moreover, manufacturers are now using promotional strategies that are particularly difficult to regulate. These include providing drugs at lower than the usual cost to ensure their inclusion in managed-care formularies, and using direct-to-consumer advertising to take advan-tage of the public’s lack of sophistication in interpreting scientific evidence. Our best hope of counteracting the power and influence of the drug industry lies in regulation by government agencies, whose interest is the protection of the 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.356 | 0.199 |
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".