International Patent Behavior of Nine Major Agricultural Biotechnology Firms
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the international patent behavior of nine major firms for seven patent authorities: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Patent Office (EPO), Japan, and South Africa. The patent sample is based on firms having an initial US patent application; this provides an indication of the amount of technology transfer that occurs from the United States to other countries. Using patent data, the research examines the correlation of firms' patent application decisions based on crop and invention types, the differences in the patent grant rates among the patent authorities, and firms' decisions to pursue patent renewals. The analysis uses empirical evidence to justify possible reasons for the lack of observing much technology transfer from the United States to other countries. Australia, Canada, and the EPO are most likely to receive patent applications. Corn and soybean and gene and method inventions are most likely to be applied for abroad. Approval rates are generally low and vary among patent offices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it