Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada first wrestled with the patentability of higher life forms in the Harvard mouse case. 1 Their decision to refuse patents claiming genetically modified animals, and by extension plants, was a major disappointment to many in the biotechnology industry in Canada.Canada stood alone amongst its GS partners as the one jurisdiction where such patents could not be obtained.Dire predictions about the future of biotechnology research and development in Canada were made.When the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal2 to Mr. Schmeiser in his legal battle with industry giant Monsanto, it was thought by many that the rights of patentees could take another blow, and further set back Canada's growing biotech industry.Others more optimistically believed that the Supreme Court had an opportunity to expand patent rights in the biotech field. II. FACTSThe respondents, Monsanto Company and Monsanto Canada Inc., are the owner and I icensee respectively of a patent titled "G lyphosate-Resistant Plants."The patent was granted in 1993 and is directed to a chimeric 3 gene that confers upon canola plants resistance to glyphosate-based herbicides.The resulting plant is named "Roundup Ready Canola" by Monsanto, referring to the resistance demonstrated by the modified canola plant towards Monsanto's own glyphosate-based herbicide "Roundup."Monsanto licenses its Roundup Ready Canola to farmers for a fee, provided they sign a Technology Use Agreement (TUA), which entitles the farmer to purchase Roundup Ready Canola from an authorized Monsanto agent.The TUA restricts the farmer from using the seed to plant more than one crop and requires the crop to be sold only for consumption to a commercial purchaser authorized by Monsanto.The farmer is also prohibited from selling or giving the seed to a third party.Additionally, the terms of the TUA provide Monsanto with the right to inspect the fields of contracting farmers in order to verify compliance.Ted Yoo is a registered patent
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".