Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under Canadian copyright law, archives and other cultural heritage institutions (CHIs) cannot legally share and distribute any orphan works in their collections. Orphan works are copyrighted materials whose copyright holders cannot be located or identified. To prove that a work is truly orphaned, the proposed user must demonstrate that the copyright holders could not be located after a diligent search. The burden of this rights clearance increases for CHIs that have large collections of orphan works. This paper reviews the current legal context for using orphan works in Canada, and the shortcomings. I propose a new system for orphan works rights clearance based on two parts. Firstly, formalizing the requirements for a diligent search to make them clear and objective. Secondly, creating a less stringent set of requirements specifically for use by CHIs, so that it is feasible for them to do diligent searches for large collections of materials. This paper also discusses and refutes multiple arguments against the proposed system.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.015 |
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".