Remix allowed :avenues for copyright reform inspired by Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the authors’ earlier article discussing the maze of restrictive copyright rules that could apply to transformative uses of existing works, this article discusses what is the most promising approach for reforming the European copyright regime to introduce more flexibility for transformative users.The authors consider two reform proposals, both inspired by Canadian law: first, the introduction of a specific exception for user-generated content; secondly, a more ambitious transition to a semi-open ‘fair dealing’ exception, striking a better balance between flexibility and legal certainty than the current EU copyright regime.The authors argue in favour of this second proposal, which provides the additional advantage of not requiring a legislative reform but being achievable by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), if only it was willing to follow the footsteps of the Supreme Court of Canada in its ambitious new cas
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".