MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3151575570

Living Inventions: Genetically Modified Organisms and the Canadian Patent System, 1976-2004

2015· dissertation· W3151575570 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2015
Typedissertation
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsGenetically engineeredBiologyGeneticsGene
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Living Inventions: Genetically Modified Organisms and the Canadian Patent System, 1976-2004 Rebecca Moore Doctor of Philosophy Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto 2015 Abstract This dissertation tells the history of the interaction between the Canadian patent system and conceptions of the organism. Although organisms have been modified by humans for millennia, their entry into the patent system demanded they be understood as human inventions in accordance with the requirements of the Patent Act. It was not enough for an organism to simply be modified by humans; instead, the modified organism had to be seen as designed and controlled by a human inventor. I explore how the organism became conceived as a living invention during the patent process. The result is a contemporary history that sheds light on Canada's current, convoluted approach to the patenting of organisms, where "lower" organisms are patentable in their entirety and "higher" organisms are not, yet patents on pieces of "higher" organisms (i.e., patents on genes contained within an organism) give the inventor control over the whole organism. This dissertation is organized around two questions: 1) How was the organism described in the Canadian patent system? 2) Why was the organism described in this way? These questions are explored through a close analysis of four key patent applications filed with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, beginning in 1976, and their subsequent journey through the Canadian judicial system. I argue that in order to answer these questions, these cases must be understood in the context of the nexus between the molecularization of biology, government and corporate investment in biotechnology, and the nature of legal protection provided by the state. It is only at this nexus that one can explain why whole, modified organisms found their way into the patent system in the first place while also illuminating how - as a consequence of their entry into the patent system - organisms were described.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.014
Science and technology studies0.0240.024
Scholarly communication0.0140.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→French-language works237,207→