MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W618135752

Just Let It Go? Controlling Reuse of Online Holdings

2014· article· en· W618135752 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean Dryden

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Museum and Library Services
KeywordsPolitical scienceLibrary scienceRevenueCopyingHumanitiesArtBusinessLawComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the ways in which American archival repositories attempt to control further uses of their online content, their reasons for doing so, and the role of copyright in such practices. In a study based on 96 repository websites, 66 survey responses, and 18 interviews with staff, the data revealed that institutions use technical measures to limit image quality or prevent copying and also establish terms and conditions that govern further uses. In some cases, a repository may be protecting its legitimate copyright interests, but in most other cases the repository is not a rights holder. Unfortunately, conditions placed on further uses are often linked to copyright, even though controls are intended to ensure attribution, generate revenue, or track use. Archives should re-examine their policies on reuse of holdings to make sure they are not invoking copyright in ways that present a barrier to the use of online documentary heritage. RÉSUMÉ Cet article examine les façons dont les centres d’archives américains tentent de contrôler davantage l’utilisation de leur contenu en ligne, les raisons pour ce faire et le rôle du droit d’auteur dans cette pratique. Dans une étude basée sur 96 sites web de centres d’archives, 66 réponses à un sondage et 18 entrevues avec du personnel, les données révèlent que les institutions se servent de mesures techniques pour limiter la qualité des images ou prévenir le copiage et établissent aussi des conditions qui régissent les autres utilisations. Dans certains cas, les centres d’archives peuvent agir pour protéger leur légitime droit d’auteur, mais dans la plupart des cas, les centres d’archives ne sont pas les détenteurs de ce droit. Malheureusement, les conditions d’utilisation mises en place sont souvent liées au droit d’auteur, même si l’intention des moyens de contrôle est d’assurer l’attribution, de générer des revenus ou de garder trace de l’utilisation. Les centres d’archives devraient réexaminer leurs politiques sur la réutilisation de leurs fonds et collections afin de s’assurer qu’ils n’évoquent pas le droit d’auteur de sorte à restreindre l’utilisation du patrimoine documentaire en ligne.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivariaSame topicHermeneutics and Narrative IdentityFrench-language works237,207