MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2006· article· en· W2146266908 on OpenAlexaff
Bonwoo Koo, Philip G. Pardey, Keming Qian, Yi Zhang

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural EconomicsSame topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207