Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1990s, genetically modified (GM) crops have rapidly gained cropping area and market share. As a result, GM crops contaminated non-GM traditional crops through pollination and other natural phenomena. In addition, the governments in the USA and Canada have concluded that GM crops can be patentable as long as they can be approved as inventions with novelty and usefulness. In the meanwhile, the “farmers' privilege" provided in the UPOV (The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants) conventions have traditionally granted farmers the right to save and replant the seeds obtained from their own property. The patent protection for GM seeds prohibits farmers from saving and replanting them without permission from the developer even if the GM crops voluntarily grow on the farmers' land. The main focus of this paper is on the protection of farmers' privilege from the ‘gene contamination' which causes the voluntary growth of GM seeds. This paper considers the fact that the patent protection for GM seeds developed by bio-multinationals has restricted farmers' privileges. It refers to the final decision by the Supreme Court of Canada for the lawsuit in which Monsanto Co. sued Mr. Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer, against his illegal utilization of the patented GM canola. In this decision, the Supreme Court concluded that Mr. Schmeiser infringed on the patent rights held by Monsanto. Nevertheless, it did not require Mr. Schmeiser to pay any compensation for his saving and replanting the voluntarily grown GM seeds for the sale of its harvest (canola) since he made no use of the ‘utility' of the GM seed, i.e., herbicide (Roundup) tolerance. The conclusion is that the spreading scope of patentability to plants will diminish the ‘public domain' of seed resources where farmers can freely save and replant them under the farmers' privilege. Hardin's ‘tragedy of commons' argues that the absence of property rights for common-pool resources will lead to their over-utilizati
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".