MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6997441558

A worldwide linked trademark database for IP research

2016· other· en· W6997441558 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrademarkIntellectual propertyScope (computer science)Government (linguistics)Process (computing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers and policy makers are concerned with many international issues regarding trademarks, such as trademark squatting, cluttering, and dilution. Trademark application data can provide an evidence base to inform government policy regarding these issues, and can also produce quantitative insights into economic trends and brand dynamics. Currently, national trademark databases can provide insight into economic and brand dynamics at the national level, but gaining such insight at an international level is more difficult due to a lack of internationally linked trademark data. We are in the process of building a harmonised international trademark database (the 'Patstat of trademarks'), in which equivalent trademarks have been identified across national offices. We have developed a pilot database that incorporates 6.4 million U.S., 1.3 million Australian, and 0.5 million New Zealand trademark applications, spanning over 100 years. The database will be extended to incorporate trademark data from other participating intellectual property (IP) offices as they join the project. Confirmed partners include the United Kingdom, Canada, WIPO, and OHIM. We will continue to expand the scope of the project, and intend to include many more IP offices from around the world. In addition to building the pilot database, we have developed a linking algorithm that identifies equivalent trademarks (TMs) across the three jurisdictions. The algorithm can currently be applied to all applications that contain TM text; i.e. around 96% of all applications. In its current state, the algorithm successfully identifies ~ 97% of equivalent TMs that are known to be linked a priori (due to shared international registration number). Current estimates indicate that approximately 40% of candidate positive links identified by the algorithm are false positives. However, we expect the proportion of false positives to become far smaller as we continue to improve the linking algorithm. A major part of improving the linking algorithm will involve combining it with a separate machine learning algorithm that we have recently developed, which exhibits very low false positive and false negative error rates. Briefly, the machine learning algorithm includes an image classification neural network that we adapted to match and disambiguate inventor names in patent records. It uses a novel matching technique whereby each pair of inventor records is compared by firstly converting the two records from raw text into an abstract visual representation, or 'comparison image'. The neural network is able to learn important features within comparison images that indicate whether the two inventor records are likely to be a match (both inventor records refer to the same inventor) or non-match (records refer to different inventors). This is done by training the neural network on data that has been manually labelled as match/non-match. Tests on a sub-sample of the labelled data (withheld from the network during training) indicate error rates as low as ~ 1%. We are currently modifying this machine learning algorithm to match trademarks, rather than inventor names. When complete, the internationally linked trademark database will be a valuable resource for researchers and policy-makers in fields such as econometrics, intellectual property rights, and brand policy.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0310.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.012
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0090.005
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.008

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.287 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology)French-language works237,207