A Contentious Business. Industrial Patents and the Production of Radioisotopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1.-Introduction.2.-A statistical survey.3.-The isotope business before the war.4.-Patents, isotopes and the war.5.-The Patent Compensation Board (PCB) activities.6.-Britain and Canada.7.-Conclusions: the contentious business.ABSTRACT: This paper analyses the role that patents played in the establishment of the isotope industry.In the first part I survey the number of issued patents on the production of isotopes, also arguing that the isotope industry was typified by inadequate patenting activities.Then I examine the factors that hindered these activities by looking at the history of industrial patents in the establishment of the isotope industry.I especially focus on the consequences of the Manhattan Project on patent legislation.As the Atomic Energy Act (1946) made the isotope industry a monopoly of the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), it contributed to transform the trading of its relevant patents in a «contentious» business.Since then, inventors and assignors already in possession of isotope production patents could only claim compensation to the AEC, which was authorised to seize them.And those who might have outlined new inventions were now deprived of the economic incentive to do so, being prohibited from free-trading them in the international market.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".