Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central feature of any parody is the use of humour or ridicule to point out some particular feature (or ‘peculiarity’) of the original work. The fair dealing provisions of Canada’s Copyright Act provide, inter alia, an exception against copyright infringement for ‘criticism’. Earlier jurisprudence declared that parodies were not forms of criticism and therefore fell outside the legislative bounds of the fair dealing scheme. The Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada has now provided definitive guidance as to liberal interpretation that the fair dealing provisions of the Act ought to receive. Combined with the maxim that the common law should develop in a manner consistent with the values enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (like freedom of expression), the Supreme Court’s decision in CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada should signal an acceptance of parody as a statutorily valid form of criticism under the fair dealing provisions of the Act.
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 | 0.021 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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".