MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271399124

When Worlds Collide: Biotechnology Meets Organic Farming in Hoffman v. Monsanto

2007· article· en· W2271399124 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn Garforth, Paige Ainslie

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass actionPlaintiffLawCanolaPolitical scienceBusinessAgricultural scienceBiologyAgronomyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The case of Hoffman v Monsanto Canada Inc. involves a group of Saskatchewan organic farmers bringing an action for certification as a class in order to pursue class action litigation against both Monsanto Canada Inc. and Bayer Crop-Science Inc. The farmers are seeking redress for alleged damage caused to them by Monsanto's and Bayer's genetically modified (GM) varieties of canola. The Saskatchewan Class Actions Act requires a court to assess the pleadings and be satisfied that they disclose a cause of action as one step in deciding whether to certify the class thus the decision from the court of first instance addresses this issue rather than the potential liability of Monsanto and Bayer for the damage alleged against them. The plaintiff farmers have three major complaints against Monsanto and Bayer: that the release of the GM varieties of canola has resulted in the spread of the plants and modified genes such that it is impossible to grow organic canola; that volunteer GM canola plants appear in fields of organic farmers, even those not trying to grow organic canola; and that the creation and subsequent abandonment of an identity preservation programme by the companies resulted in the loss of the European market for all Canadian canola. The three complaints against Monsanto and Bayer are broken down into six causes of action: negligence, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, nuisance, trespass, The Environmental Management and Protection Act (EMPA) of Saskatchewan and The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) of Saskatchewan. The court assessed the pleadings under each of these causes of action and determined that only the causes of action under the EMPA, 2002 and the EAA could be sustained. The court also determined that the proposed class failed to meet the other requirements necessary for certification. The decision from the court of first instance raises a number of underlying concerns. These include how questions of the safety of GM organisms are shrouded in an economic veil in the dispute, the rights and responsibilities of biotechnology companies in light of other relevant Canadian case law and international commitments, and the issue of access to information on GM organisms held by their proponent companies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207