Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study surveyed copyright administrators at Canadian universities about their methods of providing copyright training to faculty and non-faculty instructors, the frequency and topics of education provided, and the modes of communication used to reach instructors. Copyright administrators were also asked to rate the perceived effectiveness of their educational opportunities. Respondents feel that in-person education is most effective for providing copyright training to instructors, though a significant number of respondents do not believe that all instructors at their institutions are made adequately aware of copyright educational opportunities. Lack of time and staffing resources affect many copyright administrators. These challenges are leading many to develop more systematic approaches to reaching instructors. Communication and education are being provided directly to individual departments and by working with administrators and others at the department level. Considering the siloed nature of many copyright offices and positions, this study aims to share the approaches being taken by copyright administrators to educate instructors about their rights and responsibilities with regard to copyright and teaching. Introduction: Cette étude a sondé des agents du droit d’auteur des universités canadiennes sur les méthodes utilisées pour offrir des formations à des professeurs et autres employés, la fréquence et les sujets abordés lors de ces formations ainsi que les moyens utilisés pour communiquer avec cette clientèle. Les agents du droit d’auteur ont également évalué l’efficacité perçue de leurs formations. Les répondants croient que la formation en personne est la façon la plus efficace de former les professeurs même si un nombre significatif de répondants croient que les professeurs à leur établissement ne soient pas suffisamment informés des possibilités d’enseignement portant sur le droit d’auteur. Le manque de temps et de ressources humaines a un impact sur les agents du droit d’auteur. Cette réalité fait en sorte que plusieurs développent des moyens plus systématiques pour rejoindre les professeurs. La communication et la formation sont offertes directement dans les départements et en travaillant avec les administrateurs et autres membres du personnel au niveau départemental. En tenant compte de la nature cloisonnée des bureaux et des postes en droit d’auteur, cette étude vise à souligner les approches prises par les agents du droit d’auteur pour former les professeurs de leurs droits et responsabilités quant au droit d’auteur et à l’enseignement.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".