MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521262703 · doi:10.24926/15529541.3584

Building Intellectual Property Management Capacity in Public Research Institutions in Vietnam: Current Needs and Future Directions

2007· article· en· W1521262703 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laurel Kilgour

Bibliographic record

VenueMinnesota journal of law, science & technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsIntellectual propertyGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationState (computer science)Political scienceNormativeInvestment (military)Public policyEconomic growthCapacity buildingPublic relationsBusinessEconomicsLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rights (TRIPS) is an international treaty, enacted in 1995, that binds all member nations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to a standard level of intellectual property regulation. 1 Article 27(1) requires all member nations to provide for patents "for all inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology". 2Plants and animals, but not microorganisms, may be excluded from patentability under Article 27(3)(b). 3 Developing countries were given longer transition periods to implement the necessary changes to their laws and enforcement systems since many aspects of the TRIPS system were a "considerable novelty" in countries not accustomed to implementing such broad and stringent levels of IP protection. 4 Agricultural innovations may fall under a wide variety of IP protection methods covered by TRIPS, ranging from patents, copyrights, and trademarks to trade secrets.Plant innovations, by contrast, are covered primarily by patents, sui generis protection, or a combination thereof, as mandated by TRIPS. 5 Patents on plants, or inventions directed to plants or plant products, are allowed in the United States and under more limited conditions in the European Union, Canada, Australia, and Japan. 6eveloping countries use only sui generis

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.092 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinnesota journal of law, science & technologySame topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207