MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance Evaluation of G7 Countries in Terms of Patent Applications

2025· article· en· W4409841120 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sinan Dündar

Bibliographic record

VenueBlack Sea Journal of Engineering and Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A patent is a legal right granted by a patent authority that gives the inventor or assignee exclusive rights to produce, use, sell and distribute an invention for a specified period of time. Patent acquisition offers numerous advantages related to the protection of inventions, enhancement of competitiveness, attraction of investors, generation of income, support for innovation, market expansion, and improvement of brand reputation for the individual or entity that holds the patent. Given the significance of the patent concept, the performance of the G7 countries regarding patent acquisition is handled as multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem in this research. In the evaluation made over the total number of patent applications submitted over nine different technological domains between 2000-2020, the criteria weights were determined by MAXimum of Criterion (MaxC), Modified Preference Selection Index (MPSI) and LOgarithmic Percentage Change-driven Objective Weighting (LOPCOW) methods. By using these criteria weights which are combined with the Bonferroni Mean Operator, the MUltiple-TRIangles ScenarioS (MUTRISS) method was utilised for the performance rankings of G7 countries in terms of patent acquisition. As a result of the study, the success ranking of G7 countries in terms of patent applications was determined as USA, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Canada and Italy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlack Sea Journal of Engineering and ScienceSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207