Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is concerned with the underlying philosophy of the Canadian copyright system, and role that this philosophical model plays in shaping core concepts in copyright doctrine. It argues that the current model is premised upon the political and ontological assumptions of traditional liberal theory, and the normative assumptions of possessive individualism. As a result, copyright law fails to adequately reflect the realities of cultural creativity, and so frequently restricts the very communicative or expressive activities that it is meant to encourage. Advocating a shift away from this traditional model and the individual, proprietary rights that characterize it, the thesis suggests a new model for copyright based upon a relational and dialogic account of authorship and culture, and guided by the public interest. Within this new model, authorship can be recognized as a collaborative and communicative process, as opposed to an individualized and independent act; the author's work can be regarded as speech and not property; and users of protected works can be valued as participants in an ongoing dialogic exchange of meaning. Chapter 1 lays out the philosophical critique that underpins the thesis, and draws upon feminist literary and legal theory to suggest a new vision of the author and authorship that could influence the development of copyright doctrine. Chapter 2 examines the nature of the copyright interest, and argues for a departure from the view of copyright as a natural property right that inheres in the author as intellectual labourer. Chapter 3 considers the originality doctrine and the role played in its construction by competing theories of the author's right and the public interest. Chapter 4 is concerned with the use, transformation, and "appropriation" of protected materials, and draws the connection between the social values of copyright law and those underlying the right of free expression. The overarching theme of this thesis is the need for a departure from notions of natural right, individual entitlement, and private property in copyright law and policy, and the re-imagination of copyright in terms of cultural policy, the encouragement of a vibrant and participatory community, and the facilitation of relationships of communication.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.096 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".