Copyright Consultations Submission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Writers Guild of Canada (―WGC‖) supports a copyright regime which balances the needs and interests of consumers with the rights and protections of authors. Works should be widely available for use by consumers provided that authors are fairly remunerated for those uses. Rather than criminalize consumers’ actions, the WGC would prefer to see a Copyright Act that pre-authorizes common consumer uses of works in exchange for a revenue stream payable to authors and copyright owners by using the current Private Copying Levy as a model for a more expanded collective licensing scheme. Further, Canada should embrace a National Digital Strategy and implement reforms such that Electronic Rights Management should not be permitted to be removed, fair dealing should not be expanded by the inclusion of a ‗such as‘ clause, parody and satire should cease to be infringing activities, shared authorship should be bestowed jointly on the credited writer and credited director of cinematographic work, and the WIPO Treaties should be implemented and subsequently adapted to Canadian circumstances, in no small part to avoid the hostile reception accorded to Bill C-61.
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 | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.425 | 0.139 |
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".