Bibliographic record
Abstract
The previous chapter discussed Australia’s experiment with homegrown ‘flexible’ drafting in section 200AB. But Australia, like other countries whose copyright laws derive from the Imperial Copyright Act 1911, also recognises fair dealing exceptions. In its original statutory form in the 1911 Act, the relevant text stated that there was no infringement by any ‘fair dealing with any work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review, or newspaper summary’. In the intervening years, fair dealing provisions have become more complex. In Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, for example, they are longer, split across multiple provisions in the copyright statute and are more particularised. That said, the central requirement of fairness is suggestive of a standard, and this open-ended concept, combined with the introduction of new fair dealing purposes, raises the question of how much day-to-day fair dealing practices overlap with fair use activity in the United States.
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 | 0.044 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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".