Copyright in the Stacks: The Chilling Effects of Unclear Copyright Interpretations in the Canadian Academic Library
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The Canadian academic library is often seen as a vibrant place where the creation and sharing of knowledge plays a pivotal role in the intellectual life of the University. However this longstanding tradition is slowing being eroded by changes in copyright legislation and through infringement claims from content creators. Libraries are increasingly being placed in situations where they are expected to provide access to licensed material without clear ideas on what acceptable terms of use accompany those materials. Due to this lack of clarity Libraries are rescinding key services and being forced to spend ever increasing amounts to ensure proper licensing fees and usage rights are established. This paper will describe the current landscape surrounding this phenomenon and shed light on the chilling effects of these unclear interpretations. These results will be then be contrasted against the gains that Libraries have been making on behalf of their users in terms of advocacy and education in alternative forms of copyright.
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 | 0.035 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.064 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".