MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893784332 · doi:10.32387/prokla.v32i126.715

Die Globalisierung von Rechten an geistigem Eigentum und der Nord-Süd-Konflikt

2002· article· en· W2893784332 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Frein

Bibliographic record

VenuePROKLA Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialwissenschaft · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsGenome Prairie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyTRIPS architectureMultinational corporationTRIPS AgreementNegotiationGlobalizationInternational tradeDeveloping countryPolitical scienceDisadvantageBusinessEconomic growthEconomicsLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article discusses the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as an instrument for the globalisation of intellectual property rights. It focuses on the provisions of TRIPs Art 27.3 (b), which contains global rules for the patenting of life, and the question of access to medicines for the poor in developing countries. By analysing the underlying economic and political interests of the industrial countries and multinational corporations, which have formed the provisions of the TRIPs- Agreement, it is argued that higher standards in intellectual property rights, especially patents, advantage the rich and disadvantage the poor. Therefore there is an urgent need to change the TRIPs-Agreement in line with the interests and in favour of developing countries. The article shows that there are several suggestions for the current negotiations made not only by NGOs, but also by governments of developing countries.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePROKLA Zeitschrift für kritische SozialwissenschaftSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207