The Impact of the Canadian Copyright Act on the Voices of Marginalized Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For as long as stories have been written, they have been rewritten. Authors rewrite texts for a variety of reasons. This article will focus on one particular type of rewriting – namely, the rewriting of culturally significant texts from the perspective of marginalized groups that are either missing from or oppressed in the original text. These rewrites serve important social purposes. However, it is likely that many of these rewrites infringe Canadian copyright laws and laws with respect to moral rights. This article argues that works that rewrite culturally significant texts from the perspective of marginalized groups ought not to infringe copyright and violate moral rights in Canada. To this end, it suggests five amendments to Canada’s Copyright Act that would help ensure that the attempts by marginalized groups to express themselves through the rewriting of culturally significant texts cannot be enjoined by copyright owners and authors. Some of these proposed amendments have been incorporated into Bill C-32 (An Act to Amend the Copyright Act), the Government of Canada’s latest attempt at copyright reform.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".