MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2191984260 · doi:10.1111/coep.12497

DEPARTURE AND PROMOTION OF U.S. PATENT EXAMINERS: DO PATENT CHARACTERISTICS MATTER?

2020· preprint· en· W2191984260 on OpenAlexaff
Corinne Langinier, Stéphanie Lluis

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Economic Policy · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrademarkPromotion (chess)Patent officeDuration (music)BusinessPsychologyMarketingActuarial scienceDemographic economicsEconomicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using U.S. patent data, we wonder how examiners' career outcomes relate to aspects of the patenting process. We exploit longitudinal information about patents granted by a group of examiners between 1976 and 2006 and their yearly mobility between 1992 and 2006. We find consistent evidence from static, dynamic, and duration models of the importance of granting experience in specific technological fields, repeated interactions with the same inventor, and self‐citations in predicting departure or promotion. We find a positive (negative) association between self‐citation and likelihood of turnover (promotion) and a positive (negative) correlation between interaction with high (low) innovation firms and likelihood of turnover (promotion). ( JEL J60, O34, M51)

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.272
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.026 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Economic PolicySame topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207