Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Patents relating to the human brain and its functions regularly fulfil the general patent requirements. In some cases, however, the inventions in question reveal considerable risks for the rights of individuals, but also for society as such, which have a hitherto unknown dimension and which have not been discussed so far. Due to the limited scope of application of the ordre public clause, patent law is fundamentally not in a position to respond adequately to the challenges that exist here. The ratio of patent law and the lack of resources and also, above all, competence of the patent offices for a more extensive ethico-legal analysis mean that patent law is not the right setting for dealing with the existing challenges. Instead, the international organisations responsible for the protection of human rights and their relevant bodies are in particular demand here, although they have so far been unaware of the difficulties that are evident in the area of brain patents. What is needed is the development and establishment of mechanisms that enable the flagging and communication of critical patents, so that the responsible bodies are enabled to fulfil their tasks.
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 | 0.020 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".