Bibliographic record
Abstract
What role have developed countries, and Canada in particular, played in creating a development agenda for the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)? In this chapter I review the discussions at WIPO that resulted in an agreed development agenda in 2007, the positions taken on the issues addressed, and Canada's position and role within the debates. I argue that, in the initial phases of the development agenda discussions, Canada's allegiance to the group of industrialized nations had loosened somewhat, and that Canada took the position of a middle power, forming a bridge between developed and developing countries. I then argue that, in the less polarized debates that have followed, Canada and other developed countries encouraged the discussions along, allowing many of the less challenging proposals to pass, and softening more radical proposals. Developed countries as a whole have blocked or softened numerous proposals, such as those that called for major institutional changes at WIPO, proposals that encouraged too strongly the exploitation of public-interest flexibilities built in to intellectual property treaties, proposals that fell too far outside WIPO's focus on intellectual property, and proposals that called for new intellectual property treaties. Finally, I explain the positions taken by Canada from five perspectives: first, as an international political/economic strategy; second, as a domestic strategy catering to Canadian interest groups; third, as a function of traditional party politics; fourth, from the perspective of intellectual property policy directions being taken at a domestic level; and finally, as a function of conditions within the international intellectual property system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".