MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976587150 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13674-4

SARS genome patent: symptom or disease?

2003· article· en· W1976587150 on OpenAlexaffabout
E. Richard Gold

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthGenomeBusinessPublic domainPolitical scienceMedicineGeneticsBiologyGeneHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In addition to straining public-health administrations, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is testing out the patent system. Recent news1 that researchers in the USA, Canada, and Hong Kong have applied for patents covering the SARS genome illustrates how the patent system is still not yet ready for the breakout of genomic patent claims. In particular, the news demonstrates that the patent system needs to be adjusted—not discarded—by governments to better reach the goal of that system: the attainment of the public good.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.009

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations25
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207