Hello My name is Michel Cormier. I'm the acting commissioner for the Plant Breeders' Rights Office in Canada which is part of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Plant Breeders’ Rights Act required at the tim e that the Act came into effect that we, that a review be conducted to document the effect of the legislation after 10 years of implementation and this review was conducted and tabled in Parliament in 2002. The purpose of the 10 -year review was to assess how the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act resulted in stimulating investment in plant breeding, improving access to foreign varieties, protecting Canadian varieties abroad, improving varieties to the benefit of the public such as farmers and nurserymen and any ot her public advantage, so during that period of review it was identified that Canadian farmers and nurserymen obtained greater access to more and better varieties with increased yield, increased disease resistance and increased drought tolerance. The Plant Breeders’ Rights Act appeared to have had the most impact on access to foreign varieties; for example in the first year that the Act was implemented 97 per cent of our applications for potato varieties were from foreign breeders. Plant variety protection enabled the industry sector to develop partnerships, links and improved access to foreign varieties. Some horticulture and agriculture industries improved their export capabilities or they became net exporters of their products, particularly in floricult ure, the pulse and potato and nursery industries. For example processed potato exports went up by 200 million in seven years. During the vie, pardon me, during the review period the number of companies and organizations in Canada which were involved with , in the seed industry increased by 40 per cent, so overall the rate of variety development and availability of new varieties in Canada increased faster during the 10 years after the Act was implemented than ever before and the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act a ppears to be one factor of many that has had a positive impact on the availability of new varieties.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".