Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article compare la manière dont le Brésil et le Vietnam ont mis en place des droits de propriété intellectuelle sur les innovations végétales. Il montre qu’il est difficile pour ces pays émergents de développer des cadres juridiques qui répondent à la fois à leurs engagements internationaux et à leurs besoins nationaux. Une trop forte reconnaissance des droits de propriété intellectuelle limite en effet l’accès des scientifiques et industriels nationaux aux innovations protégées (et aux ressources génétiques et aux savoirs ainsi couverts) sans forcément leur donner la capacité de protéger leurs propres innovations. Le droit des agriculteurs de produire des semences de ferme à partir de variétés protégées est également un enjeu important. L’article explore la manière dont la théorie des commons d’Elinor Ostrom peut permettre de répondre à ces questions en appréhendant les ressources génétiques comme des common pool resources (CPR) afin de reconsidérer profondément leur appropriation exclusive sous forme d’innovations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".