Scenario-Patent Protection Compared to Climate Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) took effect as a treaty in 1994 to promote international cooperation in the fight against global warming. Currently, nearly 190 countries are signatories of the UNFCCC, which has had successive additions as the Kyoto Protocol (1997). In 1995, the Climate Technology Initiative was established within the UNFCCC to encourage international cooperation in the accelerated development and diffusion of environmentally Sound Technologies - EST. Such technologies are also capable of protection provided by patents, and this kind of protection is a valuable tool for the industrial production inventions to become a worthwhile investment, contributing to economic development. Many patent applications claim advantages relative to efficiency, waste reduction, or even the costs of operation/manufacturing. However, the difficulty of accurately distinguishing the EST’s technologies among others, which are those that only claim environmental benefits, compared to those who actually have a higher potential to promote a more positive impact on the environment directed. This study aims to report some performance initiatives in relations between technologies, focusing on the so-called “GREEN”, and the effects of climate change. Some initiatives have already been started in countries such as Australia, Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Japan, South Korea and Israel. These nations are constituted in the form of their industrial property offices, as entities that have implemented regulations regarding the patentability of requests for green technologies or EST’s such requests are known as “green patents” applications. In this context, it is highlighted that the definition of “green patents” differs from country to country and this leads to greater uncertainty in this designation, with the codes of the International Patent Classification (IPC) should be prioritized. This study observed that, in the case of South Korea, green patents are technologies classified in accordance with the interests of the Government, or, according to designations of environmental laws. Moreover, it still shows that South Korea, Australia, United States, Japan, Israel already have programs to promote accelerated examination of “green patents” applications with different criteria.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".