Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Les divergences marquees entre les deux rapports des comites parlementaires publies en 2019, celui du Comite permanent de l’industrie, des sciences et de la technologie et celui du Patrimoine canadien, sont une indication des antagonismes qui existent au Canada entre un droit d’auteur noye dans une multitude d’interets et un droit d’auteur centre sur le createur. De la meme maniere, il semble que l’on puisse parler d’une ecole de pensee ontarienne composee de nombreux universitaires qui, sans que l’on puisse parler de front commun, remettent en cause soit la gestion collective soit l’exclusivite accordee au titulaire en faisant valoir l’interet des utilisateurs. L’activisme de ces individus qui disposent souvent d’une audience enviable a une reelle influence sur la perception du droit d’auteur, souvent negative, aupres du public. Certains y voient meme la celebration d’un divorce entre le droit d’auteur et le public. La Cour supreme n’est pas indifferente a leurs arguments. En realite, depuis l’affaire Theberge, dont les faits n’avaient pourtant pas de quoi soulever l’emoi national, le droit d’auteur est devenu un lieu marchand ou priment le jeu de l’equilibre et la pesee des interets. Et a ce jeu, les titulaires ont generalement ete les perdants. Se pose alors une nouvelle fois la question de la realite du bijuridisme canadien, mais surtout, de la place et de l’avenir de la tradition civiliste dans le debat sur les objectifs de la loi et de son interpretation. Le droit civil et son subjectivisme portent naturellement les fondements d’un droit d’auteur personnaliste. Au Canada, cette observation ne peut etre faite sans prendre en compte la preservation de la langue francaise tant dans son role artistique que doctrinal. Mais il semble que la portee de la tradition civiliste qui embrasse a la fois cette identite de langage et une certaine vision de la culture se soit eteinte. Il n’y a pas de dialogue entre les traditions juridiques canadiennes dans les lieux de creation du droit d’auteur, parlementaire ou judiciaire. Peut-on alors encore parler de droit d’auteur ? English Abstract: The marked differences between the two parliamentary committee reports published in 2019, that of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and that of Canadian Heritage, are an indication of the antagonisms that exist in Canada between a copyright drowned in a multitude of interests and a copyright centred on the creator. In the same way, it seems that one can speak of an Ontario school of thought composed of many academics who, without being able to speak of a common front, question either collective management or the exclusivity granted to the owner by asserting the interest of the users. The activism of these individuals, who often have an enviable audience, has a real influence on the public's perception of copyright, which is often negative. Some even see it as the celebration of a divorce between copyright and the public. The Supreme Court is not indifferent to their arguments. In reality, since the Theberge case, whose facts were not such as to cause a national stir, copyright has become a market place where the balance of interests prevails. And in this game, the owners have generally been the losers. This raises once again the question of the reality of Canadian bijuralism, but more importantly, the place and future of the civil law tradition in the debate on the objectives of the law and its interpretation. The civil law and its subjectivism naturally provide the foundation for a personalist copyright. In Canada, this observation cannot be made without taking into account the preservation of the French language in both its artistic and doctrinal roles. But it seems that the scope of the civilist tradition that embraces both this identity of language and a certain vision of culture has been lost. There is no dialogue between the Canadian legal traditions in the places where copyright is created, parliamentary or judicial. Can we then still speak of copyright?
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".