MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622351259

"Securing" the Prophet's Copyright in the Book of Mormon: Historical and Legal Context for the So-called Canadian Copyright Revelation

2011· article· en· W2622351259 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen K Ehat

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMormonism, Religion, and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevelationContext (archaeology)HistoryCopyright lawCopyright ActPolitical scienceLawGenealogyLiteratureIntellectual propertyArtArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2009 publication of the Manuscript Revelation Books as part of the Joseph Smith Papers makes available, for the first time, the text of a revelation received in 1829 or 1830 by the Prophet Joseph Smith on securing the copyright of the Book of Mormon in all the world and selling a copyright for its publication in the four then-existing provinces of Canada. This revelation, commonly referred to as the Canadian copyright revelation, designated four of Joseph's associates to travel to Kingston, Upper Canada, to sell a copyright of the Book of Mormon. A group did travel to Kingston, but they were unsuccessful in finding a purchaser. Stephen Ehat's study explores where the revelation was received, the dating of both the revelation and the group's journey to Canada, the location of the four men mentioned in the revelation when it was given, the meaning in the revelation of the phrases "securing the copyright" and "sell a copyright," the state of both U.S. and Canadian copyright law in 1830, the financial need that likely led to the revelation, and the reason Joseph's messengers were sent specifically to Kingston.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0470.041
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.146 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University)Same topicMormonism, Religion, and HistoryFrench-language works237,207