Organic versus GM agriculture in the courtroom in Australia and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article looks at two 2014 cases concerning the threat to organic farming from genetically modified (GM) agriculture. The first, March v. Baxter in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal of Western Australia, concerned a dispute between two neighboring farmers in which one claimed that the loss of his organic certification was attributed to the harvesting practices of his GM-producing neighbor. The second, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v. Monsanto, concerned an unsuccessful application by a number of farmers' organizations in the United States seeking a declaration that, should their crops become contaminated by the adventitious presence of patented genetic material, they should not be sued for patent infringement. The Australian case, which was a world's first between neighboring farmers, made some useful comments on organic certification practices. The US decisions in the Southern District of New York and the Court of Appeals laid to rest some of the concerns that had been raised in the Canadian Schmeiser case about the liability of farmers for innocent patent infringement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".