Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to information and knowledge is closely linked to intellectual property rights, and a fair, balanced, and robust international intellectual property regime is needed to give everybody an equal opportunity to fully participate in the information revolution. This article examines the international intellectual property regime as it relates to the development of an inclusive global information society. It begins by providing an overview of intellectual property rights and justifications for protecting those rights. It then explores the increased distrust of the intellectual property system, especially among less developed countries, human rights advocates, development specialists, and those on the unfortunate side of the digital divide. The article delineates five prerequisites for the development of a fair, balanced, and robust international intellectual property regime: (1) thorough understanding, (2) balanced debate, (3) equal dialogue, (4) a fair regime, and (5) global solidarity. It concludes by critically examining those portions of the WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action that are related to intellectual property and traditional knowledge.
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 | 0.047 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".