MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396939280 · doi:10.1111/jwip.12303

Impacts of changes to Canada's Plant Breeders' Rights Act

2024· article· en· W4396939280 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stuart J. Smyth, Peter W.B. Phillips, Diego Maximiliano Macall, David Castle

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of World Intellectual Property · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract On February 27, 2015, as part of the Agricultural Growth Act, amendments to the Canada's Plant Breeders' Rights (PBRs) Act came into force, making Canada compliant with Union for the Protection of the New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) 91. One objective of adopting UPOV 91 was that it would encourage increased investment in plant breeding, giving Canadian farmers greater access to new and innovative plant varieties that enable them to be more globally competitive. To assess whether the adoption of UPOV 91 impacted crop variety investments, a survey of Canadian public and private plant breeders was undertaken in 2021–2022. Results indicate that the length of research grants play a significant role in plant breeders' perspectives. Previous research indicated that the adoption of UPOV 91 provided minimal incentives to increase investments. Results of this survey indicate that 52% of respondents, either agree or strongly agree, that the amendments to the PBR Act have provided an incentive to increase plant breeding investments.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of World Intellectual PropertySame topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207