MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Monsanto Wins Split Decision in Patent Fight Over GM Crop

2004· article· en· W2128025738 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wayne Kondro

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Occupational Therapists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCropAgricultural scienceBiotechnologyBusinessBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OTTAWA—A 6-year patent battle between a Canadian farmer and U.S. biotech giant Monsanto has come to a confusing end. Canada's Supreme Court last week ruled 5 to 4 that the farmer had violated Monsanto's patent rights by planting the company's genetically modified (GM) canola seed without paying a licensing fee. But it overturned lower court awards against the farmer, leaving both sides declaring victory. And its decision laid out guidelines for patenting GM organisms that have left many experts puzzled.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0260.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0230.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207