Legislating Open Access: Making the Case for a Secondary Publishing Right in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the potential of Secondary Publishing Rights (SPR) as a legal solution to safeguard Green Open Access (OA) and promote free and global access to Canadian research. SPR grants journal article authors the right to deposit a version of a finished article in an institutional or disciplinary repository, regardless of publisher agreements. If implemented in Canada, SPR will empower researchers, allowing them to make their work OA while also providing them with an easy path to ensuring compliance with OA funder mandates. In this paper, we compare SPR to alternatives like Rights Retention Strategies (RRS) and collective licensing, highlighting the variations of SPR implemented in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Bulgaria. Adopting SPR in Canada will significantly improve public access to research, strengthen Canada's global research impact, and create a more equitable scholarly publishing landscape.
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 | 0.026 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".