L'impasse de la position canadienne face a la qualification juridique de l'œuvre multimedia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multimedia industry represents a segment of the economy that has recently witnessed a tremendous growth rate. The rapid development of such an industry results in the need to develop adequate legal protection for multimedia works. Although doubt no longer exists as to the copyright protection afforded to multimedia works, their legal qualification remains controversial. The legal qualification of a work will influence the ownership of patrimonial and moral rights in regards to that work. The author surveys the main possible qualifications for multimedia works. Drawing on legislation and jurisprudence from the United States, France and Europe, the author suggests amendments to the Canadian Copyright Act. These amendments would ensure not only the protection of the audiovisual elements generated by their underlying computer programs, but would, by the same token, cover multimedia works.
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".