MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161981715 · doi:10.82308/42756

La rationalité organisationnelle: Une explication possible de l'état de la politique canadienne en matière de brevets pharmaceutiques?

2010· dissertation· fr· W7161981715 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melanie Bourassa Forcier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPolitics, Economics, and Education Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeRationalityState (computer science)Government (linguistics)Public policyPolicy analysisRationalization (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.277 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolitics, Economics, and Education PolicyFrench-language works237,207