Canadian copyright law and the <i>Charter of Rights and Freedoms</i> : Statutory property rights trump constitutionally guaranteed expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Copyright law has always been surrounded by controversy. It is arguable that the reason why copyright can be a sensitive issue is not simply because it is difficult to create laws for intangible pieces of property, but perhaps because copyright is so widespread it has the ability to affect a substantial number of individuals, whether users or rightholders. The constant state of flux that surrounds copyright law also adds a level of complexity. With technology constantly changing, new issues arise as a result. Freedom of expression adds another realm of complexity. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms1 acknowledges the importance of free expression in society. Section 2(b) of the Charter provides a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. Section 2(b) has already been referred to as the Charter right that has had the biggest influence in Canadian society.2 In Edmonton Journal v Alberta (Attorney General), Cory J stated that it ‘is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a democratic society’.3
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| 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".