Distilling the Canadian Copyright Review 2018: One publisher's path through Canadian copyright and Canadian Coursepacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report examines current academic publishing market in the light of the ongoing Statutory Review of Copyright Act of Canada (2018), and reconciles the testimonies presented before the review committee by the industry stakeholders. It focuses on the impact on academic publishing since the Copyright Modernization Act (2012) came into effect, which resulted in the education sector opting out of Access Copyright tariff. The report identifies the key concerns of the independent Canadian publishers: publishers’ and authors’ losses, interpretation of fair dealing guidelines, digital shift in content acquisition, institutional expenditure on Canadian content and the economics of digital environment. The report evaluates if a partnership between an independent Canadian publisher like Arsenal Pulp Press and an upcoming publishers’ consortium called the Canadian Coursepacks can help publishers recapture their academic sales revenues. The report highlights the future concerns for independent publishers in the absence of collective licensing and a need for publishers to re-think their distribution strategies, especially their sub-licensing agreements.
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 | 0.039 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.046 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".