MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W183429952 · doi:10.51644/9781554581641

Implementing the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Development Agenda

2009· book· en· W183429952 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyCorporate governancePolitical sciencePublic administrationManagementLaw and economicsLawSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The newly adopted World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Development Agenda presents a real opportunity to revolutionize the international governance of intellectual property law and policy. The litmus test for its success, however, will be if and how the agenda is implemented in practice. This edited collection brings together a series of incisive essays written by leading thinkers from emerging economies, Canada, and elsewhere to develop concrete strategies for implementing the agenda. The essays cover a range of fundamental issues surrounding the agenda and examine its recommendations from multidisciplinary and multi-regional perspectives. Several essays explore the role of WIPO and its member states in steering the direction of future reform as well as potential approaches to achieve this goal. Other contributions examine specific recommendations on WIPO’s activities within the broader context of development. This volume will be a useful source of reference for informed but non-expert readers, including government officials and delegates at international and “capital” levels, leaders of the international business community, individuals in inter- and non-governmental organizations, and scholars in the fields of law and international governance. Co-published with the International Development Research Centre and the Centre for International Governance Innovation

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.013

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.120 · 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 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

Citations40
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207