MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413769924 · doi:10.17161/jcel.v8i1.23786

Educational Copying – the “Very Antithesis of Fair Dealing” or Within Copyright’s “Breathing Space”? Part 1: Statutory Provisions

2025· article· en· W4413769924 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rumi Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Copyright in Education & Librarianship · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopyingAntithesisStatutory lawSpace (punctuation)Fair useLawStatutory interpretationLaw and economicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceSociologyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is part of a three-part series that seeks an understanding of circumstances in which educational institutions may engage in educational copying (making unauthorized multiple copies of course readings for student use) in five common law countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Part 1 considers copyright’s purpose and justifications and then surveys the parameters of copyright law—including users’ rights (copyright exceptions or limitations)—and licensing arrangements as presented in the copyright statutes of the five countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Copyright in Education & LibrarianshipSame topicCopyright and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207