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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0280.044
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0740.099

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; 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
GenreSoftware

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