MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166399494

Patent vs. Open Source: A Classroom Activity Using Texas Hold’em Poker

2020· article· en· W3166399494 on OpenAlexaff
Julien Picault

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovations in Educational Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveBusinessOpen sourceCompetitive advantageIndustrial organizationIntellectual propertyMarketingFinanceCommerceEconomicsMicroeconomicsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This classroom experiment introduces students to the various incentives that influence private companies when they invest in technology, including investments that only benefit the investing company (patent) and investments benefiting all companies (open source). The game Texas Hold’em Poker is used to simulate this competitive investing. All players have access to the flop; however, access to the turn and the river will only be granted after one-time investments. When the technology is patent-protected, the turn and the river will be accessible only to the companies that have invested. When the technology is open source, the turn and the river become available to all companies so long as at least one company has invested.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInnovations in Educational MethodsFrench-language works237,207