How Copyright Affects Interlibrary Loan and Electronic Resources in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
n Canada, the Copyright Act, copyright collectives such as Access Copyright, and the terms of negotiated license agreements all affect library practice. This paper will discuss how interlibrary loan practices and access to electronic resources are influenced by these three factors. For example, the Copyright Act does not allow digital interlibrary loan. Neither does the recent interim Access Copyright tariff, but the 2004 CCH Supreme Court Judgment seems to allow libraries a path forward for digital interlibrary loan. How do Canadian libraries choose between these conflicting messages? One of the biggest licensing issues facing Canadian libraries are electronic licenses that require Canadian libraries to follow American rather than Canadian copyright law. Two such examples are the CONTU guidelines and section 108 (g) (2) of US Copyright Law. There is nothing equivalent to section 108 (g) (2) in Canadian law, yet it is not uncommon to find Canadian libraries that have signed licenses requiring them to follow this and other parts of American law. How do Canadian libraries deal with conflicting requirements between the license and Canadian law?
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 it