Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines patents as typified communicative practices enacted within the articulated and rigid boundaries of legal systems.By applying concepts from rhetorical genre studies, the article identifies the regularities of textual features and social intentions characterizing the patent genre and shows how patents are compulsorily constructed, evaluated, and contested within highly structured socio-cultural contexts.Despite their conservative nature, both patents and the rules surrounding them are the outcome of continuous negotiations of meanings and motives among those participating in them (e.g., inventors, patent examiners, and legislators) and depend on this participation.Through a genre analysis of the system of patents granted to the University of Toronto in the 1920s for its method for producing insulin and the medical substance itself, the article discusses the changes that Toronto's Insulin Committee was able to make to the patent genre and to a broader system of interrelated genres.This case study confirms that genre innovation and transformation are indeed possible, even in the most formal and stable environments.It also demonstrates that in order to appreciate the strategic goals and rhetorical actions performed by genres, we have to situate them within the specific socio-historical circumstances in which they were enacted.
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 | 0.000 | 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".