Review: Shifting patterns in plant cultivar protection for field crops in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carew, R., Florkowski, W. J. and DePauw, R. 2015. Review: Shifting patterns in plant cultivar protection for field crops in Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 813–829. In an era of increased globalization of agricultural trade and rapid biotechnology advances in developing crops with multiple traits, public and private institutions are facing increasing pressure to protect their technologies and develop partnerships to fund research. Under the auspices of international intellectual property rights agreements, Canada adopted stronger intellectual property rights policies to protect new plant cultivars and reward owners for their innovative efforts. This paper illustrates how Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBR) applications for agriculture field crop (cereals, oilseeds, pulses) cultivars and registered cultivars by the Canadian Variety Registration Office of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (VROCFIA) have evolved over the past 20 yr in response to changes in domestic and international plant cultivar protection policies. The paper also examines the patenting pattern for plant-related traits and technologies. The paper found the bulk of PBR applications for field crops were accounted for by oilseeds followed by cereal and pulse crops such as field pea. In contrast to wheat and canola, which are protected by PBR and registered by the Canadian VROCFIA, pulse crops such as lentil have been developed by Canadian universities and funded by producer levies and released to growers without PBR protection. Among plant-related patents, most of them were credited to corn followed by canola and soybean. The Canadian public sector filed plant patents mainly for canola and concentrated on traits such as insect and disease resistance. The bulk of canola or soybean PBRs applications were by multinational life science seed companies, while the majority of wheat and barley were credited to public institutions such as the Canadian federal department of agriculture and universities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".