Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of copyright law to information and internet technology has presented governmental policy makers and the courts with both a burden and an opportunity to contemplate the comparative features of copyright law and to consider the extent to which a measure of harmonization can and ought to be achieved. In this context, three important topics, all involving recent appellate judicial determinations in Canada, will be discussed. The first topic is the scope and theoretical underpinnings of copyright law in Canada; the second topic involves an analysis of originality in an infringement context concerning non-literal copying of software and concerning the establishment of copyrightability, especially with respect to databases; the third topic concerns developments in Canada with respect to authorizing copyright infringement. Each of these topics presents an opportunity for a consideration of the benefits, or of the lack thereof, of harmonization with other jurisdictions in the application of copyright law to developing technologies. Canada's experience with both the common and civil systems and its geographic and economic proximity to the United States should equip Canada well, enabling courts and policy makers to utilize effectively comparative legal and policy perspectives and thus to ensure that these represent an opportunity instead of a burden.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
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".