What Has Changed Since 2015? A New and Expanded Update on Copyright Practices and Approaches at Canadian Post-Secondaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – The aim of this study is to update our understanding of how Canadian post-secondary institutions address copyright education, management, and policy matters since our last survey conducted in 2015. Through the new survey, we seek to shed further light on what is known about post-secondary educational copying and contribute to filling some knowledge gaps such as those identified in the 2017 statutory review of the Canadian Copyright Act. Methods – In early 2020, a survey invitation was sent to the person or office responsible for oversight of copyright matters at member institutions of five Canadian regional academic library consortia. The study methods used were largely the same as those employed in our 2015 survey on copyright practices of Canadian universities. Results – In 2020, respondents were fewer in number but represented a wider variety of types of post-secondary institutions. In general, responsibility for copyright services and management decisions seemed to be concentrated in the library or copyright office. Topics covered and methods used in copyright education remained relatively unchanged, as did issues addressed in copyright policies. Areas reflecting some changes included blanket collective licensing, the extent of executive responsibility for copyright, and approaches to copyright education. At most participating institutions, fewer than two staff were involved in copyright services and library licenses were the permissions source most frequently relied on “very often.” Few responded to questions on the use of specialized permissions management tools and compliance monitoring. Conclusion – Copyright practices and policies at post-secondary institutions will continue to evolve and respond to changes in case law, legislation, pedagogical approaches, and students’ learning needs. The recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling on approved copying tariffs and fair dealing provides some clarity to educational institutions regarding options for managing copyright obligations and reaffirms the importance of user’s rights in maintaining a proper balance between public and private interests in Canadian copyright law.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.352 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".