MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6903500841 · doi:10.11575/prism/34026

Who owns the law?

2001· other· en· W6903500841 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary) · 2001
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationCopyingContext (archaeology)Due diligenceOrder (exchange)Government (linguistics)Public law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the interests of promulgation, of spreading the law as widely as possible throughout the province and country in which it applies, the Crown freely permits us to copy legislation and judicial decisions. The law is in the public domain. That is to say that there can be no copyright infringement or plagiarism of the text of the law itself. Copying and dissemination of the law cases is even encouraged. "Anyone may, without charge or request for permission, reproduce enactments and consolidations of enactments of the Government of Canada, and decisions and reasons for decisions of federally-constituted courts and administrative tribunals, provided due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced and the reproduction is not represented as an official version." The law belongs to all of society. It can be copied and quoted freely, in books and magazines, for example. The only two requirements are that one must be careful to copy it accurately, and not suggest that it is "official", which may mislead readers. The Order does not even indicate that the law must be properly cited. Law has its own peculiar language, so the source or context of the law is likely implied by the copy.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.019
Scholarly communication0.0300.017
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.019

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.167 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary)French-language works237,207