Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: Copyright duration for classical works of authorship is currently arbitrary in Canada. There is no breadth of scientific study suggesting that precisely 50 or 70 years of posthumous protection serves much of the recognized purpose of Canadian copyright, even though we have agreed to adopt those values. This article examines the historical origins of Canadian copyright to explain the context and reasoning behind today's framework. The article then defines the current purpose of copyright in the words of the Supreme Court of Canada, and discusses how the arbitrary framework lacks the means to fulfill that purpose. Finally, the article prepares a remedy endorsing evidence-based copyright term legislation. French Abstract: La duree des droits d'auteur pour les oeuvres d'auteurs classiques est actuellement arbitraire au Canada. Il n'y a pas d'etude scientifique qui suggere que precisement 50 ou 70 ans de protection posthume servent une grande partie du but reconnu des droits d'auteur au Canada, meme si nous avons accepte d'adopter ces valeurs. Dans cet article, l'auteur examine les origines historiques du droit d'auteur canadien pour expliquer le contexte et le raisonnement derriere le cadre actuel. Il definit ensuite l'objet actuel du droit d'auteur selon les termes de la Cour supreme du Canada et analyse la facon dont ce cadre arbitraire manque de moyens pour atteindre cet objectif. Pour terminer, il elabore une solution favorisant l'adoption d'une legislation sur la duree de protection du droit d'auteur fondee sur des elements de preuve.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".