MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224237572 · doi:10.1017/9781108255905.007

Patent Responsibility

2022· book-chapter· en· W4224237572 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffensivePandemicPolitical scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineBusinessEconomic growthEconomicsManagementInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In March 2020, even after the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic, Labrador Diagnostics attempted through “the most tone-deaf IP suit in history” 1 to block testing for coronavirus that used its patents. In June 2020, Gilead Sciences shocked the international community by pricing its patented medicine remdesivir at $3,120 per course of treatment for COVID-19 patients with private insurance in the United States. Thereafter, the company was vehemently accused of overcharging in “an offensive display of hubris and disregard for the public,” 2 which also led to serious concerns that global efforts to contain the pandemic were effectively at the mercy of medical patent owners. 3 Since December 2020 when the first COVID-19 vaccine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, vaccine inequity has ravaged the globe. As of September 2021, a mere 3 percent of people in low-income countries had been vaccinated with at least one dose, in stark contrast to high-income countries’ 60 percent.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0160.011
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2740.219

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.053 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207