Bibliographic record
Abstract
How is the relationship between copyright and knowledge articulated and what influence does it have on the copyright regime? These are the main questions this study attempts to answer. The notion of knowledge has been and continues to be a driving force behind copyright developments. It has been invoked since the earliest legislations and has become one of its fundamental justifications. It structures copyright as we understand it. The first modern copyright law, the Statute of Anne enacted in 1710 in England, is imbued with the ideal of encouraging knowledge. The Canadian stance also provides a glaring example of the dialogue between copyright and knowledge. In the 19th century, the Canadian colony sought to promote its own culture. It perceived and used copyright as a means of educating its people and structured its regulations to reflect the state of learnedness in its territory. In 2012, the adoption of fair dealing for educational purposes exposed a new facet of the relation at hand. Until then, the grant of exclusive rights had been considered the main tool for promoting education, if not its raison d'être. Today, the Canadian legislator finds the (relative) public domain of education more appropriate. This thesis proposes a renewed understanding of copyright through the prism of its relationship with knowledge. It highlights the arsenal of legal means available for copyright to target the creation, diffusion, dissemination and, very recently, access to knowledge. It invites us to acknowledge the societal motives that govern the choice of such means. The mechanisms introduced and their evolution reflect the socio-economic priorities and the technological context in which they are adopted
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.009 |
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".