MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564225209

Risky Business? Issues in Licensing Copies of Archival Holdings

2016· article· en· W2564225209 on OpenAlex
Jean Dryden

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria (Association of Canadian Archivists) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceLibrary scienceHumanitiesComputer scienceArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the policies and practices of Canada’s national, provincial, and territorial archives when they are making copies for users. In many cases, these repositories attempt to control further uses under the rubric of copyright, even though they may not be the rights holders and/or interests other than copyright may be at issue. Referencing the data available on their websites, the study looks at copyright ownership and the conditions imposed on copies for users. The study reveals a wide range of practices across institutions and internal inconsistencies within a single repository’s practice. From a legal perspective, certain practices are somewhat problematic, although they may not pose a great legal risk. More significantly, by confusing users and inappropriately restricting access and use, some archives are compromising their core mission to make their holdings available. These institutions’ policies and practices for making copies for users need review to ensure that they are comprehensive, internally consistent, and up to date. RESUME Cette etude examine les politiques et pratiques des archives nationales, provinciales et territoriales canadiennes par rapport a la creation de copies pour les utilisateurs. Dans plusieurs cas, ces centres d’archives tentent de controler d’autres utilisations du materiel en pretextant le droit d’auteur, meme s’ils ne sont parfois pas les detenteurs du droit d’auteur, et/ou des questions autres que le droit d’auteur peuvent entrer en jeu. En faisant reference a l’information disponible sur leurs sites web, cette etude examine l’etablissement du droit d’auteur et les conditions que l’on impose sur les copies pour les utilisateurs. Cette etude revele une grande etendue de pratiques entre les institutions et des inconsistances de pratiques au sein d’une seule institution. Du point de vue legal, certaines pratiques sont quelque peu problematiques, quoi qu’elles ne constituent pas un risque legal majeur. Plus important encore, en semant la confusion aupres des utilisateurs et en restreignant l’acces et l’utilisation de facon inappropriee, certains centres d’archives mettent a risque leur mission de base de rendre leurs collections disponibles. Les politiques et pratiques de ces institutions par rapport a la creation de copies pour les utilisateurs ont besoin d’etre revues afin d’assurer qu’elles sont completes, consistantes et a jour.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it