MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An option perspective on generating and maintaining plant variety rights in China

2006· article· en· W2146266908 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural Economics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersHunan Academy of Agricultural SciencesChinese Academy of SciencesJilin Academy of Agricultural SciencesChinese Academy of Agricultural SciencesStyrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete
KeywordsChinaIntellectual propertyTRIPS architectureRevenueIncentiveVariety (cybernetics)Context (archaeology)Property rightsProductivityBusinessPlant varietyInternational tradeDeveloping countryEconomicsNatural resource economicsEconomic growthMarket economyLawFinanceEngineeringMicroeconomicsPolitical scienceGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Notwithstanding the ambiguous research and productivity promoting effects of plant variety protections (PVPs) even in developed countries, many developing countries have adopted PVPs in the past few years, in part to comply with their Trade‐Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) obligations. Seeking and maintaining PVPs reserves options to an expected revenue stream from the future sale of protected varieties, the value of which varies for a host of reasons. In this article we empirically examine the pattern of PVP applications in China since its PVP laws were first introduced in 1997. We place those PVP rights in the context of China's present and likely future seed markets to identify the economic incentives and institutional influences on decisions to develop and apply for varietal rights.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.159 · 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