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

Legal Liability Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology

2004· article· en· W2057616136 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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