Copyright Consultations Submission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This submission details reforms that the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) believes are necessary to balance fairly the interests of copyright holders and users of copyrighted materials so as both to encourage creation by ensuring payment for use and to safeguard equitable public access to and use of ideas. New copyright legislation must not restrict fair dealing. It must not make it illegal to circumvent a digital lock to use a copyrighted item for purposes that do not infringe copyright (doing so is not required by Canada‘s treaty obligations) or to convert a work into any format that is usable for a person with a disability. Further, it must also not make it illegal for a library to maintain long-term accessibility to materials by migrating them to new formats or to deliver to the end-user a digital copy of a print document. In addition, there should be a good faith defence from statutory damages for copyright infringement, a ―notice and notice‖ rather than a ―notice and takedown‖ system should be implemented for internet service providers, and a reformed Act should prohibit ‘standard form’ contracts from usurping rights granted under the Act, while a statement clarifying the permissibility of using Internet sources for educational use, without circumscribing a user‘s fair dealing rights, should be added.
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 | 0.007 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.579 | 0.343 |
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".