MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124667861 · doi:10.3386/w25742

In-Text Patent Citations: A User’s Guide

2019· report· en· W3124667861 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Bryan, Yasin Ozcan, Bhaven N. Sampat

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2019
Typereport
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersOffice of Behavioral and Social Sciences ResearchHigh Energy PhysicsNIH Office of the DirectorRIKENNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichNational Jewish HealthIFP Energies NouvellesNational Institute on AgingUniversity of Washington
KeywordsInformation retrievalComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce, validate, and provide a public database of a new measure of the knowledge inventors draw on: scientific references in patent specifications. These references are common and algorithmically extractable. Critically, they are very different from the "front page" prior art commonly used to proxy for inventor knowledge. Only 24% of front page

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablemedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.148
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.161
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1480.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.1660.066
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.007

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 head0.939
GPT teacher head0.731
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations34
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207