Applications for the 2024 Ancestry Continuing Education Award are now open. This scholarship, valued at $1200 CAD, is open to members of the BIPOC community who are pursuing an education in the field of archives and records management. The award also includes a complimentary membership to the ACA for one year. The Award is administered by the Association of Canadian Archivists Foundation.

Applications close 31 March 2024. The English application form can be found here<https://archivists_ca.formstack.com/forms/ancestry_continuing_education_award>, and the French application form here<https://archivists_ca.formstack.com/forms/programme_de_bourse_de_formation_continue_ancestry>.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Kyle Pugh

treasurer@archivists.ca

The ACA 2024 Conference Program Team invites students of library, archives and information studies who have written a paper, conducted research, or participated in a project to share their experience and submit proposals. That's right, take it to the next level and gain valuable public speaking skills while building your resume. We encourage you to submit proposals related to the key topics of the ACA 2024 Conference: Artificial Intelligence and Archives; the Climate Crisis; and social and political conflict. However, the CALL for Student Papers and the Emerging Voices Session welcomes all topics and first-time presenters!

All Student submissions will be considered by the ACA Foundation Board Members for selection in the Emerging Voices Session. Three successful applicants will be invited to present virtually in the Emerging Voices Session, and will receive a monetary award and complimentary conference registration. To receive this award, you must be an ACA Student member. Submissions that are not selected for the Emerging Voices Session will be considered for the general conference program.

Deadline for Submissions is 19 February, 2024 at 11:59 pm MST

ACA 2024 Student Submission Form

If you have any questions, please contact the Chair of the ACA Conference Program Team at Program.team@archivists.ca

Dear GRSIS members,

We are rescheduling the next GRSIS coffee chat until a time that will work for more members. Please stay tuned for a February gathering! Meanwhile, if you have suggestions for discussion topics or a new approach to these coffee chats, please contact me. Personally, I am inspired by the fabulous new NFB documentary UnArchived, and would be very interested to hear what work our community is doing that addresses the issues it raises.

Here's a link to that film if you haven't seen it yet: https://www.nfb.ca/distribution/film/unarchived

See you in February!

Susan Hart

susanhart314@gmail.com

Do you know an international archivist who is studying in the United States or Canada?

The Oliver Wendell Holmes Award enables international archivists, who are currently training or studying in the United States or Canada, to augment their experience by traveling to the Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archivists. Recipients receive a certificate and a cash award of $1,000 to help cover costs of the 2024 SAA Annual Meeting for archives students who are not U.S. or Canadian citizens (or permanent residents) and are studying in the United States or Canada. Self-nominations are welcome.

Please click here for additional details and to preview the online application for the Holmes Award. The deadline is February 28, 2024 at 11:59 PM CST.

All applications must include the following:

1. Personal statement/essay
2. CV or resume

If you have any questions regarding the award or the application process, please contact Tamar Zeffren, Oliver Wendell Holmes Award Committee Chair, at tzeffren@ajhs.org.

Below (and attached) is the archival community response to the Federal Government Consultation on Copyright in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence, submitted by the Canadian Council of Archives and endorsed by the Association of Canadian Archivists and l’Association des archivistes du Québec.  A French translation of the submission will be posted when it becomes available.

The submission was prepared by the Canadian Council of Archives (CCA) Statutory Review Working Group - established to examine and address issues related to the Canadian archival community in the review of the Canadian Copyright Act, and the ongoing consultations instituted by the federal government. The Working Group is composed of: Nancy Marrelli, Chair; Jean Dryden, appointed by the Association of Canadian Archivists; Nancy Marrelli is also Interim representative of l’Association des archivistes du Québec.

The consultation submissions required responses to an online questionnaire, so the attached document replicates the questions and our responses. Some questions were not applicable to our community and they have been tagged as Not Applicable (NA)

Copyright and Generative AI Consultation
Questionnaire Responses from the Canadian Archival Community

January 14, 2024
Technical Evidence

The Government of Canada invites views on technical aspects of AI technologies, including on the following questions:

• How does your organization access and collect copyright-protected
content, and encode it in training datasets?

NA (not applicable)

• How does your organization use training datasets to develop AI
systems?

NA

• In your area of knowledge or organization, what measures are taken to
mitigate liability risks regarding AI-generated content infringing existing
copyright-protected works?

NA

• In your area of knowledge or organization, what is the involvement of
humans in the development of AI systems?

NA

• How do businesses and consumers use AI systems and AI-assisted and AI-
generated content in your area of knowledge, work, or organization?

The holdings in Libraries, Archives and Museums (LAMs) are a major source of documents for AI researchers in their development of training datasets for use in training AI models, particularly those datasets used to train large language models. Canadian archival holdings are a rich treasure trove of records in all formats that serve as the raw material for scholars, students, and ordinary citizens. Archival institutions have eagerly embraced the opportunities provided by the Internet to digitize and make our holdings available online. When digitized, traditional records can be mined for valuable historical information. For example, fur traders’ journals document decades of weather patterns, relations between indigenous people and settlers, and early commercial activities; and tax rolls record the names of residents, which are of great interest to family historians. In addition, archival institutions are acquiring born-digital records and research data
sets from their parent institutions and private donors.

Transparency and ensuring non-bias in training datasets is of concern to LAMs because of our public service mission. Although it may be onerous, it is very desirable to create the metadata to be able to identify and link the training datasets to the generative AI output created by the AI tool. This metadata will provide transparency and oversight to the users, and also for the creators and rightsholders whose works are used in the datasets in a non-consumptive way. Canadian LAMS are also beginning to use some of the emerging generative AI tools for their own purposes. Archives can use AI tools to generate basic metadata, transcriptions, and create important access points for all manner of digitized documents, thereby providing greatly improved access to our holdings for their researchers and the General Public. (See Pavis, Mathilde. Artificial Intelligence: a digital heritage leadership briefing, 2023 https://www.heritagefund.org.uk/about/insight/research/artificial-intelligence-digital-heritage-leadership-briefing.). Along with many other materials, Canadian archives include a large volume of orphan works (works for which the rights holder is unknown or unreachable) on a wide variety of topics and archivists and researchers would benefit greatly from more clarity on whether or not orphan works can be digitized to enable this kind of improved access. The newly created metadata that can be produced by generative AI will unlock access to the content of archival holdings that goes well beyond what is possible with the limited human resources currently available in archival institutions.

Recommendations:
• Provide clarity in the Copyright Act for the legal use of data for training
generative AI tools
• Require AI researchers and developers to ensure training datasets have
identifiable metadata that can be linked to generative AI output

Text and Data Mining

The Government of Canada invites views on whether any clarification is needed on how the copyright framework applies to text and data mining (TDM) activities, notably on how and when rights holders could or should be compensated for the use of copyright-protected content as inputs in the development of AI. Although all comments are welcomed, the Government is particularly interested in receiving feedback on the following questions:

• What would more clarity around copyright and TDM in Canada mean for
the AI industry and the creative industry?

NA

• Are TDM activities being conducted in Canada? Why or why not?

NA

• Are rights holders facing challenges in licensing their works for TDM
activities? If so, what is the nature and extent of those challenges?

NA

• What kind of copyright licenses for TDM activities are available, and do
these licenses meet the needs of those conducting TDM activities?

NA

• If the Government were to amend the Act to clarify the scope of
permissible TDM activities, what should be its scope and safeguards?

Libraries, archives, and museums (LAMs) are unlikely to be AI developers, so
LAMs don’t need an exception that permits them to use copies to train machines. LAMs are more likely to be asked to make copies of their holdings for AI developers upon request. If so, the fair dealing provision (s 29) of the Copyright Act (CA) may well serve, with some changes. The changes proposed below build upon provisions that are part of the balance between the rights of copyright owners and the interests of users already established within the CA. Before describing the proposed changes, it is important to note that provisions such as fair dealing and the exceptions for LAMs are fundamental to the balance inherent in a well-functioning copyright system. Canada’s approach to the challenges of AI must begin with established principles. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has established that exceptions are not just loopholes, but users’ rights (CCH v LSUC 2004 SCC 13 para 48), and we steadfastly defend their presence (particularly the fair dealing provision) as a fundamental principle. Since fair dealing is not limited to particular user groups, rights, formats, or categories of
protected matter, everyone can benefit from it to access and use copyrighted material without authorization or payment, provided that the dealing is fair as determined by the SCC’s two-step test.

As beneficiaries of fair dealing, LAMs already can make copies upon request for the purpose of research. Provided that TDM is appropriately defined to be clear that it is included within a broad and liberal interpretation of research, making copies for TDM falls within one of the allowable purposes of fair dealing. That uncertainty would be clarified if the fair dealing provision were amended by adding TDM or computational data analysis to the list of authorized purposes, OR by making the purposes illustrative rather than exhaustive, i.e., “fair dealing for purposes such as research, private study, ...do not infringe copyright.” A further condition would require the LAM to inform the requester that the copies were provided for research only, that any further uses may require the permission of the rights holder, and that it is the responsibility of the requester to obtain any necessary permissions. Admittedly, the scope of fair dealing may have to be clarified through litigation, since the limited case law cited in the consultation paper does not address situations where the copied images were used to train a
machine.

Since users’ rights are fundamental to a balanced copyright system, constraining them through contractual agreements undermines the system. Thus, the Copyright Act must be amended to provide that any contractual provision contrary to the exceptions in the Act shall be unenforceable.

The proposed amendments would provide legal clarity for both LAMs and AI
developers by enabling LAMs to provide copies to AI developers to be used in the training of machine learning models.

Recommendations:
• Amend the fair dealing provision of the Copyright Act to provide that TDM lies within the scope of fair dealing.
• Amend the Copyright Act to provide that copyright exceptions cannot be
overridden by contract terms.

• What would be the expected impact of such an exception on your industry
and activities?

NA

• Should there be any obligations on AI developers to keep records of or
disclose what copyright-protected content was used in the training of AI
systems?

Having sufficient metadata that would identify and link the training datasets to the generative AI output created by the AI tool would be highly desirable.
Requiring AI developers to provide such metadata would provide transparency to the users of AI tools, and to the creators and rightsholders whose works are used in the datasets in a non-consumptive way. In order to ensure transparency and clarify rights issues, generative AI output should always be tagged as such.

Recommendation
• Require AI researchers and developers to ensure training datasets have
identifiable metadata that can be linked to generative AI output.
• Generative AI output should always be tagged as such.

What level of remuneration would be appropriate for the use of a given work in TDM activities?

NA

• Are there TDM approaches in other jurisdictions that could inform a
Canadian consideration of this issue?

The possibility of a more general exception to permit TDM falls outside the scope of the archival community’s direct interests. If, however, such an exception is needed, the provisions of Singapore’s Copyright Act pertaining to computational data analysis (sections 243-244) are well thought out in terms of scope and appropriate safeguards.

Its strengths are:
• Definition of “computational data analysis” (s. 243)
• Limited purpose (only Computational data analysis) (s. 244)(2)(a) & (b))
• Copy supplied/communicated to another only in very limited circumstances (s.244)(2)(c) & 244)(4))
• User must have lawful access to source materials (s. 244)(2)(d))
• Infringing source materials can be used subject to specific limited conditions (s.244)(2)(e))


Authorship and Ownership of Works Generated by AI

The Government of Canada invites views on how the copyright framework should apply to AI-assisted and AI-generated content. Although all comments are welcomed, the Government is particularly interested in receiving feedback on the following questions:

• Is the uncertainty surrounding authorship or ownership of AI-assisted and
AI-generated works and other subject matter impacting the development
and adoption of AI technologies? If so, how?

In Canada the basic principle is well established that copyright is automatic
for original creations that include human skill and judgment, as specified
in the Supreme Court decision (CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper
Canada, 2004 SCC 13, para. 25). The output that results from the generative
AI mechanical process cannot meet this requirement for skill and
judgment and is therefore not protected by copyright. The humanly
created algorithm does meet the requirement and is protected by
copyright.

The current principle of not assigning copyright protection to generative AI
output does not at all appear to be limiting the rapid development and
adoption of AI technologies. The lack of certainty is, however, having a
profound effect on creators and how they view their future prospects from
both an economic and social standpoint.

• Should the Government propose any clarification or modification of the
copyright ownership and authorship regimes in light of AI-assisted or AI-
generated works? If so, how?

We believe that assigning full intellectual property rights to the output of
generative AI processes is inappropriate. LAMs have a long history of
advocating for clarity in the Copyright Act and we believe this issue must be
addressed in the legislation, to provide as much clarity as possible.
Even with the current constraints and uncertainties, AI is profoundly
disruptive in many ways, particularly to the creative communities. Assigning
copyright protection to AI output would very negatively affect the work of
creators and their contribution to society, resulting in a negative effect on
incentive to create. Extending copyright protection to AI output calls into
question the value we place on human creativity and expression.
AI processes can be programmed to create mass output that could quickly
monopolize the creative space, thereby disrupting in profound ways human
creative activity, the copyright balance, and the marketplace.

The rapid development and dissemination of AI has already created
considerable disruptions to the creator community, and these will continue
to be a major problem. Creators contest that the ingest of their works in
the creation of the AI training models without attribution, permission, or
financial compensation is a serious problem that will affect them in many
ways. But fair dealing and/or a TDM exemption would permit data mining
for research purposes of the millions or billions of documents in the data
sets used for training.

The prospect of directly compensating creators within the structure of the
Copyright Act raises many thorny problems. Copyright law should not be
used to address broad societal problems and challenges. However,
copyright law is not the only way that we can reward creators. We
recommend that the Government create a system outside the copyright
regime to reward and acknowledge creators for the part their work plays in
generative AI, such as a program in which AI developers are required to
contribute to a fund that will be plowed back into the creator community to
support a broad spectrum of Canadian creativity. (Other examples of this
type of scheme are Canada’s Public Lending Rights, Telefilm). The details of
how such a program would work would have to be carefully considered,
with input from the creator community, and the outcomes would have to
include mandatory contributions by those developing the training datasets,
and money paid out to the creator community. This would help redress the
balance between human creators and the potential dominance of large
corporate AI in the marketplace and the creation landscape. Such a
program would enhance Government efforts to ensure support for
Canadian creators and creative industries, while simultaneously fostering
Canadian AI competitiveness, innovation, and support for maintaining
overall access to Canadian creation, all of which are important public policy
objectives.

Recommendations:
• Amend the Copyright Act to maintain and clarify the basic principle that
copyright protects original creations that are the product of human skill and
judgment and that the mechanical generative AI output is in the public
domain, but the humanly created algorithm is protected by copyright.
• Create a system outside the copyright regime, that rewards and
acknowledges creators for the part their work plays in generative AI, whereby
generative AI developers are required to contribute to a fund that will be
plowed back into the creator community to support a broad spectrum of
Canadian creativity.


Are there approaches in other jurisdictions that could inform a Canadian
consideration of this issue?

With further study and careful consideration, it is possible to consider very
limited rights for AI outputs in particular circumstances, a variation of what
is sometimes referred to as “thin copyright”, such as the limited rights
sometimes accorded to databases. But these should be very limited in both
scope and duration.

Recommendation:
• Consider very limited rights for AI outputs in particular circumstances, a
variation of what is sometimes referred to as “thin copyright”.

Infringement and Liability regarding AI

The Government of Canada invites views on questions about copyright
infringement and liability raised by AI, particularly since there is a lack of evidence currently available in this regard. Although all comments are welcomed, the Government is particularly interested in receiving feedback on the following questions:

• Are there concerns about existing legal tests for demonstrating that an AI-
generated work infringes copyright (e.g., AI-generated works including
complete reproductions or a substantial part of the works that were used in
TDM, licensed or otherwise)?

NA

What are the barriers to determining whether an AI system accessed or
copied a specific copyright-protected content when generating an infringing
output?

At present, there is no requirement for AI developers to provide metadata that would identify and link the training datasets to the generative AI output created by the AI tool. Requiring AI developers to provide such metadata would assist in determining whether protected material had been copied when generating an infringing output, in addition to providing transparency to users of AI tools, and to the creators and rightsholders whose works are used in the datasets.

Recommendations
• Require AI researchers and developers to ensure training datasets have
identifiable metadata that can be linked to generative AI output.

• When commercialising AI applications, what measures are businesses taking to mitigate risks of liability for infringing AI-generated works?

NA

• Should there be greater clarity on where liability lies when AI-generated
works infringe existing copyright-protected works?

It is clear that there should be greater clarity on where liability lies when AI-
generated works infringe copyright-protected works. The current liabilities for copyright infringement should apply, but the issues will be clarified through litigation. Resolving the potential continuum of responsibility that arises with the actual situations in the litigation will be a more realistic approach, rather than rushing into a legislative solution that may have unintended consequences. The solutions must be consistent with the public policy issues discussed in other sections of this questionnaire

Recommendations
• Continue to apply current liability provisions and remedies for copyright
infringement.
• Resolve liability and remedies issues that arise with ongoing litigation, to be consistent with sound public policy

• Are there approaches in other jurisdictions that could inform a Canadian
consideration of this issue?

NA

You are cordially invited to a free online lecture (9 February 2024 at 12 p.m. EST): “Rare Virtues & Most Ingenious Men: Benito Arias Montano, Christophe Plantin, and the Remarkable Emblem Book Humanae Salutis Monumenta.”

In 1568, the erudite priest and scholar Benito Arias Montano made the arduous journey from his homeland of Spain to the city of Antwerp to oversee the edition of the Polyglot Bible by the renowned press of Christophe Plantin. The two men struck up an ardent and enduring friendship while producing some of the most fascinating and historically significant texts of sixteenth-century Europe. McMaster University’s Archives and Research Collections holds several books resulting from this partnership, including two copies of Arias Montano’s Humanae Salutis Monumenta (Monuments of Human Salvation) — a lavishly illustrated emblem book with a complex publication history. Though both copies share the same title page, dated 1571, they are otherwise typographically and visually distinct. How can this be?  

Join Ruth-Ellen St. Onge, McMaster’s Distinctive Collections Cataloguing Librarian, on an exploration of sixteenth-century emblem books, the friendship and working partnership of Arias Montano and Plantin, and the intricate and surprising differences between two copies of one book. This deep dive into the publishing history and physical features of Humanae Salutis Monumenta aims to provide fresh insights into a time of great crisis and intellectual ferment. 

This lecture is hosted by McMaster University Library’s Archives Alive program in partnership with McMaster University Alumni.  

Register using this link: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/7117029337060/WN_YJ6K3R2YStyLooXIzk7Eqw#/registration. Please feel free to share this invitation with other interested parties.

Best wishes,  

Gillian 

Gillian Dunks, M.A., M.A.S. (she/her)

Archives Arrangement & Description Librarian

President, McMaster University Academic Librarians’ Association

Archives and Research Collections

McMaster University

905-525-9140 x 23361

 

McMaster University is located on the traditional territories of the Mississauga and Haudenosaunee nations, and within the lands protected by the Dish with One Spoon wampum agreement.

The deadline for submissions for the 2024 ACA Virtual Conference has been extended to January 19, 2024, 11:59 PM MST.

Visit the site for more information on the conference.

As a part of a UBC iSchool course on Public Programming, students Harron Hall, Laura Dickson and Oluwatomilola Ojo wrote this compelling letter to the political powers that be, calling for RCMP recordkeeping accountability in relation to Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people. This call is in response to recommendations published in Forsaken: The Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, informally known as the “Wally Oppal” report, which focuses on the RCMP’s court challenge to allow for the destruction of evidence in the Robert Pickton case. 

Please consider adding your name to the online petition linked at the end of this document.

 

December 7, 2023

 

The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions

and Intergovernmental Affairs, Government of Canada

269 Laurier Avenue West

Ottawa ON K1A 0P8

 

Niki Sharma, Attorney General of British Columbia

Room 232 Parliament Buildings, Government of British Columbia

Victoria BC V8V 1X4

 

Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General

British Columbia, Government of British Columbia

PO Box 9282 Stn Prov Govt

Victoria BC V8W 9J7

 

Mike Duheme, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)

RCMP National Headquarters

73 Leikin Drive

Ottawa ON K1A 0R2

 

Re: A call for RCMP recordkeeping accountability in relation to Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people

 

We are a group of information professionals who are deeply concerned about the scarcity of sufficient, comprehensive records relating to missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people. The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls shows that although it is likely that more than 1,000 Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people are missing or murdered, the exact number and the affected communities remain unknown.

The enduring colonial relationship between the justice system and Indigenous people is fraught with bias and discrimination. As a result, recordkeeping relating to these cases is insufficient and sometimes inaccurate—families often dispute the official conclusions of case files. This is especially clear in the Robert Pickton case, as families have advocated for co-conspirators to be charged and for Pickton to be charged with the remaining victims. Furthermore, inadequate record-keeping practices are outlined in the Forsaken: The Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, informally known as the “Wally Oppal” report. Commissioner Wally Oppal outlines that the lack of information systems hindered proper investigation. This caused a significant barrier to solving the cases sooner and enforcing justice.  

The recent application submitted by the RCMP to dispose of roughly 14,000 exhibits relating to the Robert Pickton cases further demonstrates that recordkeeping and documentation around this issue are still not taken seriously. While we recognize the amount of resources needed to preserve the evidence, we also acknowledge that we are in an era of reconciliation, and it is past time to answer the recommendations outlined in the two inquiries, along with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action. Moreover, this letter endorses the recent RCMP Destruction of Evidence “open letter.” Moreover, consistent with the National Inquiry’s Final Report calling for nationwide consistency in reporting mechanisms for missing Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, we call on the RCMP to implement a strict, consistent, and comprehensive record-keeping policy for cases involving MMIWG2S+. This is imperative for justice, accountability, transparency, and truth and reconciliation. Furthermore, a database for existing records and new caseloads must be maintained. This database must be trauma-informed, Indigenous-led, and centered on impacted families.

Therefore, in upholding our commitment towards reconciliation as information professionals, we call on the RCMP and governments of BC and Canada to intervene and support the request to preserve evidence in the Pickton case. We endorse the following Calls to Action outlined in the RCMP Destruction of Evidence “open letter.”

1. Moratorium on Evidence Destruction: We call for an immediate end to the RCMP’s disposal (including dispersion or destruction) of evidence related to the Pickton case and for adequate resources to be allocated to ensure the integrity of this evidence is preserved to ensure a thorough investigation into the unsolved cases and prevent impunity for co-conspirators.

2. Legislative Review and Reform: We call for a review and reform of the legislative framework governing evidence disposition, particularly in unsolved cases involving Indigenous and marginalized women and girls. This review should aim to create a clear, consistent, and transparent national policy that aligns with Canada’s human rights obligations to prevent and remedy violence against women

3. Strengthening Accountability: Reinforce mechanisms of accountability within the RCMP and related judicial bodies to ensure that the handling of evidence always reflects the highest standards of investigation and respects the principles of reconciliation, human rights and equality.

4. Prioritize Resources Towards the Unsolved Missing Women’s Investigations: We call for the RCMP to exercise their due diligence by prioritizing adequate resources towards the investigations of the unsolved missing women’s cases related to Pickton to ensure that they are capable of leading to prosecutions and remedies for victims. This includes ensuring that all legal avenues are explored

Both the Wally Oppal and MMIW2S+ reports play a pivotal role in unveiling the pervasive issue of violence against Indigenous women and girls, providing a comprehensive understanding of the historical and systemic challenges they face. Ignoring the preservation and prioritization of information management and archival records within the justice system carries profound consequences. The primary risk lies in hindering transparency and perpetuating historical injustices. By neglecting this critical RCMP record, there is a danger of marginalizing the voices of Indigenous women and girls who have experienced violence, denying them the societal acknowledgement they deserve.

Additionally, the failure of the RCMP and the Government of Canada to prioritize the RCMP record undermines the efforts of Indigenous people in seeking information about their family members. This neglect erodes the potential for truth and reconciliation, hindering the healing process for affected communities and obstructing the path toward justice. As technology advances, there is an opportunity to identify the DNA of co-conspirators and charge Robert Pickton with the murder of the remaining victims.

Moreover, RCMP and the Government of Canada overlooking the proper documentation and keeping of this record will jeopardize the broader goal of addressing systemic issues, hindering progress toward a more equitable and just society. The consequences extend beyond the immediate implications for Indigenous communities, impacting the collective understanding of historical events and impeding the ability to learn from the past.

In essence, ignoring the significance of the calls to action identified places at stake the pursuit of transparency, justice, and the comprehensive recognition of the experiences of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people. It diminishes the potential for societal healing and reconciliation, perpetuating a cycle of historical oversight and systemic neglect.

 

Sincerely,

Harron Hall

MAS student

University of British Columbia

EMAIL: hall29@ubc.student.ca

 

Laura Dickson

MLIS student, UBC

 

Oluwatomilola Ojo

MLIS Student, UBC

 

Enclosed:

Endorsers/Signatories - Re: A Call To Preserve Evidence In The Pickton Case (google.com)

ACA 2024 Virtual Conference

Future-Proofing: Centring Care Now for Archives Tomorrow

Future-Proofing: Centring Care Now for Archives Tomorrow discusses designing systems and processes, and relationships that anticipate future needs of users, archivists, and society. What strategies and tools can archivists use to prepare for future challenges, known and unknown? What practices can archivists draw upon to support our resilience and that of our materials while we consider the still-developing challenges of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Climate Crisis, and social and political conflict? Future-Proofing: Centring Care Now for Archives Tomorrow explores how we can proactively prepare our profession to ensure that archival organizations remain relevant to their communities, responsive to the evolving record-keeping landscape, and in accordance with professional ethics.

Location: Virtual/ Alberta

Dates: June 11 - 13, 2024
Format: Virtual

PROPOSALS DEADLINE:

Friday, January 5, 2024, 11:59 pm, MST

The 2024 ACA Program Team invites proposals that reflect on the theme of Future-Proofing: Centring Care Now for Archives Tomorrow.

Types of Proposals (All VIRTUAL):

• Traditional Session: Presentation of research papers, case studies, and thought pieces. 20 minutes per speaker followed by a question period.
• Panel Discussion: Presentation of research papers, case studies, and programs or projects. 10 minutes per speaker followed by a discussion period.
• Roundtable:  Presentations of programs, projects, and tools. 5 minutes per speaker with open discussion.
• Focused Debate on Specific Topic: Brief presentations with debate to follow.
• Sprint Session on Specific Challenge: Presentation of a challenge to registered group of participants. Timed exercise to brainstorm a solution to a problem.
• Performance: Presentation of a short film, video, dance, song, or performance. 5-15 minutes. Discussion period.
• Storytelling session
• Workshops: Virtual interactive workshops using Zoom. 1.5 – 3 hrs in length. Participation can be limited to a specific number if necessary.
• Other format: Please share your ideas!

Suggested Conference Topic Areas:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Archives

• AI tools for archival processes (appraisal, arrangement & description, preservation, and access)
• AI and Digital Curation for online archives
• Ethical considerations of AI and Archives
• Access, Privacy and AI
• Increasing accessibility with AI
• Trustworthiness of AI-generated records
• Building competencies for new technologies, such as AI into archival education programs for students and professionals.
• Indigenous perspectives and approaches to AI and Archives
• Bias and representation in AI training data

Climate Crisis

• Emergency & Disaster Preparedness
• Wildfire Response & Case Studies
• Climate Emergency Toolkit Creation
• Conservation & Treatments for Archival Materials
• Considering digital preservation through a Climate Change lens
• Adapting appraisal and selection strategies to address Climate Change
• Climate Activism and Archives
• Building competencies for Climate Change adaptation into archival education programs for students and professionals
• Indigenous perspectives and approaches to stewardship and Climate Crisis

Social and Political Conflict

• Integrating trauma-informed practice into archival appraisal and selection
• Trauma-informed Practices and Disaster Recovery
• Trauma-informed Practices and Oral History during Crisis Events
• Advocacy for adapting trauma-informed practices in Archives
• Mis/dis information and recordkeeping during conflict
• Human rights and Archives
• Indigenous knowledge and archives as sites of conflict
• Truth and Reconciliation strategies and case studies

While topics related to AI, Climate Crisis and Social & Political Conflict will be highlighted at the 2024 ACA Conference, the Program Team will consider proposals exploring other areas and encourage practitioners to submit proposals related to current actions to make archives more accessible and/or relevant in the future.

The Call for Student Papers and a Call for Posters will be announced in early 2024. Scholarships are available to students and are administered by the ACA Foundation.

Please feel free to direction questions to:

Jessica Bushey

Chair, ACA 2024 Conference Program Committee

Program Team Members

Jonathan Bowie

Linnet Chappelka

Sam Frederick

Emma Morros

Karen Ng

Lelland Reed

Corinne Rogers

Olivia White

La version française suit 

Call for Proposals for Concordia University's Library Research Forum 2024 (Deadline: January 26, 2024) 

Presentation and poster proposals are now being accepted for Concordia University's 22nd Library Research Forum. This year's Research Forum will be a two-day hybrid event, with presentations taking place virtually on Zoom on Tuesday, April 16, 2024, and presentations and posters taking place in person at Concordia University’s Loyola Campus on Wednesday, April 17, 2024.

This year’s plenary speaker will be Aaron Johnson, Principal Investigator at Concordia’s Vision Lab and Associate Dean for Research and Infrastructure in Concordia’s Faculty of Arts and Science, as well as Resident Researcher at the Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire en réadaptation du Montréal métropolitain (CRIR), whose research in human vision spans a range of areas from low-level computational models of vision, to applied research in the fields of marketing, aviation, and low-vision rehabilitation.

Proposal deadline: January 26, 2024. For more details about the event and how to submit a proposal, visit: http://library.concordia.ca/about/staff/forum 

Questions? Please contact the Forum Committee at lib-forum@concordia.ca

Library Research Forum Committee 2023-2024: Krista Alexander, Larry Deck (chair), Kate Ripley, Pat Riva, Ellen Wright

******************************************************************

Sujet : Appel à propositions pour le Forum de recherche de la Bibliothèque de l’Université Concordia 2024 (Date limite : le 26 janvier 2024)

Vous êtes invités à soumettre une proposition pour le 22^e Forum annuel de recherche de la Bibliothèque de l'Université Concordia. Le Forum de recherche de cette année aura lieu de façon hybride avec des présentations virtuelles sur Zoom mardi le 16 avril 2024, et des présentations et affiches sur place au Campus Loyola de l’Université Concordia mercredi le 17 avril 2024.

Cette année, notre conférencier invité est Aaron Johnson, chercheur principal au laboratoire de vision de Concordia et vice-doyen, recherche et infrastructures de la faculté des arts et des sciences de Concordia, ainsi que chercheur résident au Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire en réadaptation du Montréal métropolitain (CRIR), dont les recherches sur la vision humaine incluent des modèles informatiques de bas niveau de la vision ainsi que la recherche appliquée dans les domaines du marketing, de l'aviation et de la réadaptation des personnes malvoyantes.

Date limite pour les propositions : le 26 janvier 2024. Pour plus de détails sur l'événement et sur la façon de soumettre une proposition, visitez : http://library.concordia.ca/about/staff/forum  

Questions? Veuillez contacter le comité du forum au lib-forum@concordia.ca

Le comité organisateur du Forum sur la recherche en bibliothéconomie : Krista Alexander, Larry Deck (président du comité), Kate Ripley, Pat Riva, Ellen Wright