Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper advocates for a view of copyright not as economic incentive or reward, but as a critical piece of a broader social policy, the goal of which is to help build a just and inclusive society. Copyright can play an important role in helping build such a society, in that the exclusive rights granted to creators under copyright legislation, as well as the limits placed on those rights, can be structured in ways that help advance this goal. However, copyright alone can only do so much. In seeking to build a just and inclusive society, copyright must be embedded within, and seen as part of, a broader system of supports, incentives, and social programs focused on justice and inclusion. This paper will identify several ways in which the current Canadian copyright regime is in tension with the goal of building a just and inclusive society. It will then highlight a number of supports, incentives, and programs that together with copyright can help make our society more just and inclusive. In particular, it will emphasize the important role played by libraries in seeking to build a society in which everyone has the opportunity to learn, create, and communicate in ways that are consistent with one’s own cultural and legal traditions, and in an environment that is safe and secure.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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 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".