MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057616136 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2004.4560

Legal Liability Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology

2004· article· en· W2057616136 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Drew L. Kershen

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsTrespassTortPlaintiffLiabilityIntellectual propertyPatent infringementContext (archaeology)BusinessLawAgricultural biotechnologyLegal liabilityStrict liabilityLaw and economicsEconomicsAgriculturePolitical scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents an overview of the legal liability issues in torts and patent law that arise from the use of transgenic crops produced by agricultural biotechnology. Torts—A tort is a civil legal action whereby the claimant alleges injury or wrong, arising independent of contract, to the person or property of the claimant. The article begins with legal liability claims for damage to property, damage to persons, and damage to economic interests (markets) that may arise with the use of transgenic crops. The tort theories discussed include the legal claims of trespass, strict liability, negligence, private nuisance, and public nuisance. With respect to each tort theory, the discussion points out unique legal issues that are likely to exist specifically because the litigation involves agricultural biotechnology. Patent Infringement—The article ends by focusing on four patent infringement cases that courts in Canada and the USA have decided regarding farmers who used patented seed from agricultural biotechnology without permission of the patent holder. As of May 2003, these are the only four patent infringement cases that have resulted in formal legal opinions by courts construing patent and antitrust laws in the context of farmers saving seeds protected by patents.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.024
Scholarly communication0.0110.013
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0190.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207