Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a grey area for inventors - or more realistically, their employers - between the time when they know they have a good idea that will probably work, and having a demonstrably new invention that will be patentable. This leaves them with the challenge as to when to file for a patent and what it can cover. It has become common practice for the chemical, biotechnology, and drug industries to file for a patent (the "genus" patent) when the inventors have a discernible group of materials and compounds that can do "something," and which satisfies the requirements for utility, novelty and unobviousness, and then to continue working on those compounds in order to tease out best candidates with specific properties. In 'Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc.', [2008] S.C.J. No. 63, the innovator company Sanofi had obtained a genus patent covering a large group of compounds on the basis of years of work and sound prediction. In the genus patent there was no distinction drawn between the effects of different isomers, where the compounds have the same chemical formula, but one version rotates polarised light to the right, "dextrorotatory," and the other to the left, "levorotatory." One version of the compound can be imagined as a mirror image of the other.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".