MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765594471

Canada: Copyright Law and Practice

2017· article· en· W2765594471 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeremy de Beer

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawTRIPS architectureConventionPolitical scienceIntellectual propertyTRIPS AgreementCopyright lawWork (physics)Law and economicsFair useMoral rightsCopyright ActSociologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International Copyright Law and Practice is an annually updated looseleaf treatise that integrates the global analysis of international copyright with in-depth chapters on national laws. The text explains, step-by-step, the issues that arise when a work or other media production crosses borders, and how national laws and treaties, from the Berne Convention to TRIPS, govern these issues in real cases.This chapter explains Canada's copyright law. To facilitate easier research, these chapters follow a common and intuitive outline answering your critical questions: • How are criteria of protectability formulated and construed? • What types of works and other productions are protected? • What special cases to consider: titles, designs, software, etc.? • How are performances, recordings, databases, etc., covered? • How long do rights last? What durations for foreign works? • Who first owns rights? What rules govern diverse transfers? • What procedures govern registration, royalty rates, etc.? • What conditions must be satisfied to protect foreign claims? • What moral and economic rights apply? How are they infringed? • Who may be liable: infringers, dealers, facilitators, hosts, etc.? • What exceptions, legal licenses, etc., may serve as defenses? • How to obtain civil, criminal, and administrative remedies?

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCopyright and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207