MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392771881 · doi:10.1093/grurint/ikae018

35th Sharing Session – On SEPs – Standing Committee on the Law of Patents, WIPO, Geneva

2024· article· en· W4392771881 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lea Tochtermann

Bibliographic record

VenueGRUR International · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)LawPolitical scienceBusinessEngineeringAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) is in the early stages of placing standard essential patents (SEPs) on its agenda. Taken up at the initiative of the delegation of Canada, initial deliberations on the topic show cautious efforts to assess the current situation on very basic terms with the goal of achieving an understanding of the matter. On this basis, the SCP will evaluate whether WIPO should envisage taking action in the future and what form such action should take.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0200.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1430.052

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGRUR InternationalSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207