MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613997517

Policy Forum: Patent Box Regimes--A Vehicle for Innovation and Sustainable Economic Growth

2017· preprint· en· W2613997517 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joanne Hausch, Albert De Luca

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBase erosion and profit shiftingIncentiveProsperityBusinessSustainable growth rateInvestment (military)Profit (economics)Industrial organizationSustainable developmentAction planEconomicsEconomic growthFinanceMarket economyPolitical scienceManagementDouble taxation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Innovation is widely recognized as the key to sustainable economic growth. Because people and projects are mobile in this global marketplace, companies have many investment options, and countries must compete for business investment. Research and development incentives are therefore very important, and patent box regimes are becoming more and more popular. However, there are also international concerns about harmful tax practices and base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). Patent box regimes are addressed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in action 5 of its BEPS action plan. In this article, the authors review the concept of the patent box and consider the effectiveness of this type of incentive in driving innovation and prosperity. A review of patent box regimes around the world is provided, with summaries of new regimes enacted or proposed in a number of key jurisdictions. Finally, Canadian developments in this area - existing and potential - are considered.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0160.012
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0620.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.018

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicInnovation Policy and R&DFrench-language works237,207