Intellectual Property Rights in Traditional Knowledge: Enabler of Sustainable Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional knowledge (TK) plays an integral role in supporting sustainable development practices and can act as an enabler of sustainable development in indigenous and local communities (ILCs) through recognition of intellectual property rights (IPRs). This paper explores points of convergence and divergence, arguing that the application of IPRs to TK held by ILCs can help facilitate sustainable development. An overview of the normative development, including key definitions, relating to sustainable development and TK is offered as background. Contemporary tensions and arguments favoring the application of IPRs to TK are summarised, followed by an analytical reconciliation of points of divergence based on international and domestic legal practices, and a discussion of the role of TK in achieving sustainable development. Recognition of IPRs in TK held by ILCs through a specialized internationally binding instrument could work to reconcile lack of trust, positively incentivize preservation, and act as an equitable enabler of sustainable development.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".