Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the impacts of changing biotechnology and intellectual property rights (IPRs), institutions, and policies for Canadian crop development related to oilseed rape or “canola” as a case study. Implications for China as it considers regulatory and institutional change related to private sector incentives to invest in biotechnology are also discussed. Design/methodology/approach The authors assess the effects of introducing biotechnology and IPRs in the Canadian oilseed sector over time. Data on the rate of return on agricultural research in general are presented and then the focus moves to the impacts for farmers in Canada. New data are gathered to estimate recent gains in the benefit of biotechnology advancements for farmers. Furthermore, the evolution of agricultural research in China is briefly presented, and a discussion follows that considers Canadian evidence and the possible applicability of the impacts to China. Findings The results support earlier studies identifying gains from agricultural research and show that private sector investments in Canada are now much higher than public sector investments and thus institutional innovations have been a powerful trigger to improve productivity. The gains from biotechnology for farmers are now over CND 1 billion per year in Canada. Research limitations/implications The research gains measured are for Canada so should be applied to China’s situation only as a potential for gains. Practical implications While more work is needed to identify reasonable institutional incentives to generate private investment in China’s biotechnology industry, the potential impact in the Canadian canola sector highlights the importance of continuing the investment in biotechnology, and the need for appropriate policies and regulations to spur private investment. Social implications Biotechnology greatly improved the welfare of farmers in Canada. Much of the gain the authors find was in improved yields and lower herbicide costs that improved farmer profits. Privatization of breeding was a key step in this transformation. Originality/value The paper contributes an updated review of Canadian intellectual property institutions related to biotechnology, and an updated measure of gains at the farm level. It also begins the analysis of the applicability of these institutional changes for China.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".