Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper sets out to distinguish four kinds of copyright limitations, of which only one can be regarded as a true exception. There are (a) subject matter limitations, (b) scope limitations, (c) miscellaneous exceptions, and (d) exceptions properly so-called. The upshot of this classification is that “exceptions properly so-called” denote instances where copyright as a juridical order encounters claims recognized in other juridical orders, with the result that the resolution of the ensuing dispute requires reaching beyond or outside the copyright regime itself. The encounter between copyright and freedom of expression is an example of such a situation. One might say that exceptions properly so-called are sites wherein the language of copyright encounters other juridical languages, thereby giving rise to efforts of translation. From this viewpoint, the problem of language and copyright to which this volume is devoted turns out to be less about examining the relationship between different tongues, than about conceptualizing the nexus between copyright and other juridical orders. In this vein, the paper considers the definitions of and distinctions between subject matter limitations, scope limitations and miscellaneous exceptions. It then discusses aspects of the relation between copyright and human rights as an example of an encounter between copyright and other juridical orders. On that basis, it suggests by way of conclusion that “proportionality” is the name we give to the efforts of translation to which exceptions properly so-called give rise. Exceptions are not peripheral phenomena, but rather invitations to understand the relatedness of different juridical orders as aspects of a comprehensive system of rights.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".