MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Access Copyright and Fair Dealing Guidelines in Higher Educational Institutions in Canada: A Survey

2019· article· en· W2909076698 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsGuidelineHigher educationTariffInterpretation (philosophy)Fair dealingPolitical scienceAcademic communityPoint (geometry)Supreme courtPublic relationsBusinessPublic administrationLawSociologyGood faith

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information about the acceptance by Canadian Higher Education Institutions (HEI) of the Access Copyright (AC) tariff is important for educators even though only a minority of HEIs in Canada have committed to the AC tariff. In addition, the copyright “pentalogy,” the five major decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), and its interpretation of fair dealing has become relevant for the institutions, faculty and students. Many universities and community colleges in Canada have adopted the Universities Canada (UC) guidelines on fair dealing, while some have adopted the “six-point test” as their guideline. In some cases, institutions have not adopted any policy or guidelines on any aspect of copyright. This paper will investigate these issues to provide one view of the behaviour Canadian HEIs exhibit in their adherence to AC and their use of policy and guidelines at their institutions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.029
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.139 · 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