MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4243084792 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14643987.v1

In defense of traditional knowledge: the case of Bt brinjal and challenges to the international intellectual property agenda

2021· preprint· en· W4243084792 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Evan Millar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawsuitIntellectual propertyTamilHarmonizationTraditional knowledgeAgricultureTreatyPolitical scienceGlobalizationLawInternational tradeBusinessGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theories on the globalization and harmonization of intellectual property law tend to take a state-level approach when discussing the impacts of large-scale harmonization of patent laws on developing countries. This paper uses a case study of the Indian experience of adapting to international treaty mandated changes to domestic patent law and the 2011 announcement of an IP lawsuit over the alleged biopiracy of genetic material from a traditional Indian plant variety, and connects the experience of an individual country to the wider body of research and theory that exists on the relationship between IP and development for non-Western countries. The paper also provides a discourse analysis of the public reaction, as covered by English-language Indian newspapers, to the lawsuit launched against Monsanto, the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company, the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharward, and the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University by the governmental organization the National Biodiversity Authority over the development of the transgenic Bt brinjal crop.

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)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0320.025
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering→French-language works237,207→