Leaps in Media Access & Reuse: Copyright Codes of Best Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic librarians and media scholars face increasing pressures to preserve, provide access to, and reuse media technology. Simultaneously, technological advances add complexities to assessing the applicability of fair dealing to unauthorized scholarly uses of copyright-protected content. To address these challenges, concerned members of these two communities have joined forces to create the Media Access and Copyright (MAC) Working Group. This paper provides an overview of MAC’s structure and achievements as well as its current research project, the development of two codes of best practices aimed at supporting informed decision making in the application of fair dealing by scholars and practitioners. Awarded best paper by practitioner author at the 2024 Canadian Association for Information Science conference
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 | 0.111 | 0.207 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.111 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.048 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".