An institutional view on the leverage of external patent law expertise and patenting performance: Insights from China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on the institutional setting in China, this study examines how firms seek legal resources and their effects on patenting performance in a weak and transitional intellectual property regime. We illustrate that due to weak protection of intellectual property rights in China, firms rely on external legal resources, which are found to be positively related to patenting performance in terms of the capability of external patent law expertise, but negatively related in terms of knowledge diversity. The marginal effect of the level of external patent law expertise on patenting performance is positive when research and development (R&D) investment is low and negative when it is high, illustrating the negative interaction between R&D investment and the level of external patent law expertise. Furthermore, institutional pressure and support moderate the effect of the level of external patent law expertise on patenting performance. This study advances the understanding of the impact of patent institutions on patent strategies in transition economies and provides novel implications for policy and patent management.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it