Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bird & Bird's Trevor Cook has produced another thorough and insightful analysis, this time on the important area of defences to patent infringement for research activities in Europe and, in particular, the UK. The work, published both as a Report of the Intellectual Property Institute and, in abbreviated form, in the Intellectual Property Quarterly, assesses historical and international perspectives on defences for experimental or private uses and regulatory review. It analyses, in turn, the consequences for failing to fall within such a defence, concerns as to the scope of various versions of the defence internationally and the extent to which the current form of the defence should be amended in the UK. The Appendices helpfully summarize the experimental use and regulatory review defences in major jurisdictions and provide a timeline of court decisions and legislative changes in the USA, Canada, and Europe. As readers will be aware, the European...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.057 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".