Fear, Hope, and Longing for the Future of Authorship and a Revitalized Public Domain in Global Regimes of Intellectual Property
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Authorship is the special privilege of having one's efforts recognized as creating a and the capacity to appeal to the state to protect that work because it is a contribution to something we call progress in the arts or sciences. So-called copyrighting of culture will only further imperil the public domain; it may enable elites to enforce forms of censorship within communities; it has the potential to freeze identities, and shut down desirable hybridities. Many progressive North American scholars of intellectual property have placed their energies behind the revitalization of a cultural public and the maintenance of a creative commons. To the extent that we are committed to the public domain, we need to consider a wider range of activities and practices than those that copyright law traditionally recognized as acts of authorship and those most characteristic of Western creators. Intellectual property rights are human rights, as are rights of access to the public domain, rights of collectivities to maintain their integrity and to participate in decisions involving the use of their heritage. By considering both intellectual property rights and rights to the public domain within a larger human rights framework, the social, economic and rights of others assume a new significance.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".