MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1645940184 · doi:10.7215/ip_ip_20101124

Intellectual Property Training and Education: A Development Perspective

2010· report· en· W1645940184 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy de Beer, Chidi Oguamanam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyContext (archaeology)TRIPS architectureEnforcementPerspective (graphical)Political scienceTraining (meteorology)Public relationsEngineeringLawBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the TRIPS Agreement, IP training and education activities have become more prominent. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)'s Development Agenda and other IP reform efforts have included recommendations for IP education. WIPO and the WIPO Academy are prominent actors in IP education, engaging a wide audience in developing countries. WIPO has been particularly influential in Nigeria, but by focusing mainly on piracy and the enforcement concerns of rights holders, training and education activities have yet to facilitate more context-sensitive discourse about broader socio-economic and cultural implications of IP issues and human development. Most or all IP education activities currently fail to integrate a development dimension, despite its centrality in the WIPO DA. The DA provides an opportunity to re-evaluate the design and delivery of IP training and education, drawing on emerging best practices in development-oriented IP courses. The authors conclude by exploring next steps for improving training and education on IP and development.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.051 · 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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207