The Geopolitics of Nineteenth-Century Canadian Copyright, as seen by some British Authors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following Confederation, Canada was deemed a Dominion and provided with sufficient powers to conduct its own affairs. But the de facto experience was that when its affairs crossed international borders, Imperial preferences took precedence and Dominion reverted to colony. The arena of copyright was no exception. American publishers had captured the Canadian reading market through both piracy and private arrangements with British copyright owners. The Canadian government tried to regain its market through an innovative measure which would provide compensation to foreign copyright owners and foster Canadian publishers and authors. That proposal was firmly denied by Britain; it sought instead to hold Canada to the role of customs officer with respect to the duties owed for unauthorized American reprints circulating in the colony. This historic fact is not in doubt; but a study from the perspective of British authors, largely through the journal of the Society of Authors (U.K.), offers insight into these nineteenth-century events. Intriguingly, British authors had shown an intelligent awareness of the difficulties surrounding reading in the colonies and, both implicitly and explicitly, gave some support for Canada’s proposal. However, stronger voices from within the British publishing sector ensured that copyright remained bound by tradition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".