MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597109657

The patentability of electromagnetic and acoustic signals in Canada

2010· article· en· W2597109657 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalie Raffoul

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDiverse Interdisciplinary Research Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatentabilityAcousticsComputer scienceBusinessPhysicsLawPolitical scienceIntellectual property
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of the patentability of electromagnetic and acoustic signals has not been litigated in Canada. If, however, the issue does come forward for litigation, Canadian courts may decide differently than their American colleagues did. The Supreme Court of Canada’s ‘Harvard Mouse’ decision shows that the Canadian law on patentable subject matter differs from American law. Under the Canadian definition of manufacture, electromagnetic and acoustic signals could constitute patentable subject matter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicDiverse Interdisciplinary Research InnovationsFrench-language works237,207