MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069961616 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002060

Use and Misuse of Material Transfer Agreements: Lessons in Proportionality from Research, Repositories, and Litigation

2015· article· en· W2069961616 on OpenAlexafffund
Tania Bubela, Jenilee Guebert, Amrita Mishra

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institutes of HealthGenome AlbertaAlberta InnovatesOntario Genomics InstituteStem Cell NetworkOntario GenomicsGenome Canada
KeywordsMandateNegotiationProportionality (law)InstitutionConfidentialityBiologyPublic relationsLaw and economicsBusinessPolitical scienceLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Material transfer agreements exist to facilitate the exchange of materials and associated data between researchers as well as to protect the interests of the researchers and their institutions. But this dual mandate can be a source of frustration for researchers, creating administrative burdens and slowing down collaborations. We argue here that in most cases in pre-competitive research, a simple agreement would suffice; the more complex agreements and mechanisms for their negotiation should be reserved for cases where the risks posed to the institution and the potential commercial value of the research reagents is high.

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)0.252
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.390
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2520.390
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0180.090
Scholarly communication0.0390.092
Open science0.0090.022
Research integrity0.0250.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.486
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.156 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations40
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207