MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7018610609

Discussion following the Remarks of Mr. Phillips and Ms. Erickson

2004· article· en· W7018610609 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada-United States law journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyAppealSupreme courtScope (computer science)InventionProperty (philosophy)Gray (unit)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yeah, I had a question on intellectual property.Isn't it true that U.S. intellectual property protection is broader than Canada's?In other words, aren't there differences in the scope of intellectual property protection in this area, which involves living things frequently?I think that makes a difference, doesn't it?MR.PHILILPS: Yeah.I mean, the intellectual property system is fairly complex.I mean, it is not just patents and plant breeders' rights, but we have somewhat different sets of structures in both countries, and then different again from the international system or other countries.In Canada, we have very similar definitions of what's patentable, except that we haven't gone as far along as allowing patents on multi cellulared organisms.We've gone up to and including patenting of singular cellulared organisms.With the Harvard Mouse case that went through the Supreme Court last year, the judgment was that the Patent Act was never intended to deal with multi cellular organisms.Now, we've got a reference on the Schmeiser case, which relates toreally doesn't relate to patenting at all, or the patenting of higher life forms, but it's been construed in the Supreme Court appeal as relating to patenting of higher life forms.And in that case, they want to bring the bar back from ameiosis closer to the single cellulared organisms, because there's gray area there.We know ameiosis isn't allowed under the decision, but a single celled organism is.So where's the line?Is it single celled or is it multi celled, not sentient?You know, that is the debate that is going on.The effect of that could be very large or very small.Practically speaking, it is not that big a deal for the products that are in the markets today in the agri-food world, because there are other protection mechanisms.You can use contracts; you can use a whole variety of ways of stopping people from reproducing your technology.But in the long run, if you can't get patents that are clear and succinct, the industry says that they will be less interested in investing money in research that only has application in Canada.So we may get me, too, research, but we won't get research into products that are critically important to Canada more than the United States.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada-United States law journalSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207