MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742433480 · doi:10.1163/17087384-12342069

International Intellectual Property Agreements as Agents of Sustainable Development of Developing Countries

2017· article· en· W2742433480 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bethel Uzoma Ihugba, Ikenna Stanley Onyesi

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyStatus quoDeveloping countrySustainable developmentInternational tradeBusinessInternational lawLeast Developed CountriesEconomic growthPolitical scienceLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper examines the implication of International Intellectual Property (ip) laws and agreements on the sustainable development of Least Developed Countries (ldcs) and Developed Countries (dcs) and suggests approaches for improving the development and wellbeing of people in the developing world through national ip laws. The paper argues that generally international ip agreements may appear biased against developing countries and most dcs are reluctant to challenge the status quo and/or use the flexibilities of the international ip agreement to promote the wellbeing of their citizens. However, the article finds that ldcs and dcs could change this trend through the creative use of national ip laws and international agreements to promote the sustainable development of ldcs and dcs. The major instrument suggested for this shift in approach is the establishment of national ip administration institutions and the positive use of compulsory licences.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.145 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207