MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W935542713

Confusion and Contradiction: Untangling Drug Importation and Counterfeit Drugs

2005· article· en· W935542713 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Timothy Gilbert, Sana Halwani

Bibliographic record

VenueCalifornia Western international law journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterfeitConfusionContradictionDrugCounterfeit DrugsBusinessPharmacologyMedicineLawPsychologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyEpistemologyPsychoanalysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUNDDrug importation first became big news in the United States when busloads of seniors began crossing the border to buy cheaper drugs from Canadian pharmacies.'Media reports soon followed that Americans were buying drugs from Canadian Internet pharmacies.Numerous bills were introduced in the House and Senate, each aimed at creating an importation scheme for prescription drugs. 2 At the same time, articles and books were being written about the problem of counterfeit drugs in America 3 and the fact that many Internet pharmacies claiming to be Canadian were not in fact based in Canada and were not selling Canadian-approved drug products.More broadly, Americans learned that a significant portion of the drugs available through the Internet were counterfeit.These two stories-importation and counterfeit drugs-have now become intertwined and inseparable.There is a growing perception that drugs imported into the United States have a much greater chance of being counterfeit.Underlying this belief appears to be a sort of xenophobic sentiment, a fear of drugs that are anything but homegrown.Yet, an important fact appears to have been forgotten: American drugs--drugs that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for sale in the United States-are manufactured all over the world.41. See IMS, RETAIL PRESCRIPTIONS GROW AT RECORD LEVEL IN 2003 (2004), http://www.imshealthcanada.con/htmen/1_09.htm.Although Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations currently prohibit retail pharmaceutical imports from Canada, a discretionary policy of the FDA and U.S. Customs Service allows a significant volume of imports to the United States.Total imports under the Customs Service personal use exemption totaled approximately $600 million in 2003.Id. 2. Safe Import Act of 2005, S. 184, 109th Cong.(2005); Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2005, H.R. 328, 109th Cong.(2005); Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2005, S. 334, 109th Cong.(2005).These three bills are currently making their way through Congress and are commonly called the Gregg Bill (S. 184), the Gutknecht Bill (H.R. 328), and the Dorgan-Snowe Bill (S. 334).For more information on the progress of these bills, see Thomas: Legislative Information on the Internet, http://thomas.loc.gov(insert the above-mentioned bill numbers into a search of the 109th Congress). See, e.g., KATHERINE EBAN, DANGEROUS DOSES: How COUNTERFEITERS ARE CONTAMINATING AMERICA'S DRUG SUPPLY (2005).4.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0200.115
Scholarly communication0.0190.048
Open science0.0030.017
Research integrity0.0120.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.260
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCalifornia Western international law journalSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207