[{"id":3248546,"description":"How can we encourage women to pursue scientific careers? In recent years, a number of mentoring or awareness campaigns have been put in place to encourage French high school students to study maths, physics or engineering sciences, while they remain underrepresented in these fields. One of the last large-scale initiatives is the Filles et Maths program , launched in 2025, including work on gender bias, the implementation of “role models” or timetables featuring flexible hours. The program was nonetheless met with criticism: while women remain under-represented in some disciplines, they also remain a minority in the highest positions across the board in the academic world, from mathematics to social sciences. In France, gender inequalities are therefore not limited to access to scientific studies: they cut across all university careers and make many women leave French Higher Education and Research before securing tenure. This “drain” is explained by several factors among which motherhood holds an important place. A survey in Denmark illustrates that unlike men, one in three women abandon their scientific career after the birth of their first child. The survey I have been conducting among doctoral students and social scientists highlights the difficulties faced by women who became mothers before becoming permanent employees. Since the 1980s , recruitment requirements have become tougher with candidates needing to have written a good PhD paper, regularly have their work published , participate in scientific events and get involved in the life of research labs. Much of this work falls under hope labour , that is, unpaid work done in the hope of future employment. In this context, what could be called the myth of the “total researcher” takes shape. This is based on the double penalty of being a productive scientist (without necessarily receiving any financial reward) and embodying the ideal of a career woman, devoted companion, and dedicated mother all rolled into one. However, this ideal of the “total researcher” clashes with the actual conditions of scientific work and motherhood. Paying the motherhood penalty in academia Becoming a full-time researcher requires mothers who aren’t tenured researchers to reorganise their lives. Some cram several days’ work into one by doing casual work, part-time teaching, unpaid scientific projects, and parental responsibilities. The pace often makes women work under pressure, sometimes at the expense of the quantity and quality of their scientific work. Other women choose to remain unemployed or take parental leave and thus link their career to that of their spouse if they earn enough. If this strategy of linked career is favourable for scientific production when you have a child, it also creates material dependence that could lead to sexist and sexual violence within the family unit, which this testimony from Jeanne, a doctor and mother of a little girl, illustrates: “I sometimes feel like I have to [‘have sex’], telling myself that ‘I owe him’ and ‘He lets me know it’.” In a professional context , where every moment must count, maternity, parental or sick leave become scientific working hours in themselves. Rebecca, for example, shared that she continued writing her final thesis when her son was sent to hospital in an emergency. This situation feeds a feeling of double guilt: the respondents believe they are never up to par, neither as mothers nor as researchers. Joana explains: “I took parental leave from work, but I feel bad about working when I see my son next to me.” Some non-tenured researcher dads, on the other hand, benefit from an academic paternity bonus. The gendered division of domestic and parental tasks, as well as taking paternity leave, sometimes allows them to devote more time to their research. To quote Marion’s doctor of History husband’s words: “I have completed nearly two articles in one month of paternity leave!” The","source":"The Conversation – Articles (FR)","pubDate":"Thu, 29 Oct 2026 07:58:21 +0100","titre":"The impossible equation of being a researcher mother, striving to make ends meet","url":"https://theconversation.com/the-impossible-equation-of-being-a-researcher-mother-striving-to-make-ends-meet-294312"},{"description":"Le texte français suit. CALLeagues, With the release of the program for the annual conference , I hope to see many of you in Moncton. This varied and engaging program is the tangible result of the vision and leadership of our Conference Planning Committee Co-Chairs Michèle Leblanc and Laura Corscadden, with guidance from our Second Vice-President Pia Williams, along with the hard work of the volunteers on the subcommittees, and the many speakers who will be sharing their expertise - how fortunate we all are that these currents will converge in a month’s time in the “Hub City”. Leading up to our flagship event, the first part of our annual general meeting will be held on Monday, May 11, 2:00PM-2:30PM ET. While the formal notice will soon be sent to your inboxes, I could not wait to let you all know now, as this is the forum in which our many committees and Special Interest Groups report on and celebrate their activities and achievements from the past year. As we prepare for our most important events of the year, our website will, of course, continue to be updated. As you make your way through the website and happen to find an error that needs to be corrected or an update that needs to be made, you can now submit it using the new website update request form . This form provides you and our National Officer Laura Romero with a clearer, more consistent and systematized way to make timely updates to our organization’s online home. All the best, ~Jason Wong Bonjour à tous les membres de la CALL/ACBD ! Le programme de notre congrès annuel étant désormais disponible, j’espère vous voir en grand nombre à Moncton. Le programme varié et captivant témoigne de la vision et du leadership de nos coprésidentes du comité de planification du congrès, Michèle Leblanc et Laura Corscadden, qui ont bénéficié des conseils de notre deuxième vice-présidente, Pia Williams, sans oublier les efforts déployés par les bénévoles des sous-comités et la multitude de conférencier.ère.s qui partageront leur expertise. Nous avons bien de la chance que ces courants convergent dans un mois dans la « ville-carrefour » ! Avant notre événement phare, la première partie de notre assemblée générale annuelle se tiendra le lundi 11 mai, de 14 h à 14 h 30 (heure de l’Est). Vous recevrez bientôt la convocation officielle par courriel, mais j’avais h'te de vous en informer puisqu’il s’agit d’un forum au cours duquel nos nombreux comités et groupes d’intérêt spécial   présenteront un compte rendu de leurs activités et célèbreront leurs réalisations de la dernière année. Alors que nous préparons nos événements majeurs de l’année, la mise à jour de notre site Web se poursuivra. Vous pouvez désormais signaler toute erreur à corriger ou modification à apporter lorsque vous naviguez sur le site en utilisant le nouveau formulaire de demande de mise à jour du site Web . Ce formulaire vous permet, ainsi qu’à notre responsable nationale Laura Romero, d’effectuer des mises à jour rapides, claires, cohérentes et systématiques de notre site Web. Amicalement, ~Jason","id":3241544,"source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","titre":"President's Message / Message du président","url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/13622192","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:57 +0100"},{"source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","id":3241473,"description":"CALL member Erica Friesen, Research and Instruction Librarian & Online Learning Specialist at the Lederman Law Library at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario recently wrote an article on \" Thoughts on the New Lexis+ Brief Analysis Tool: For Law Students and Novice Researchers \". It originally appeared on Slaw.ca on September 28, 2022. It is republished here with permission of the author. New academic year; new legal research tools. Something new always comes out right as another cohort of students is gearing up to begin their law degree. And, as with many new product launches these days, “artificial intelligence” is often a prominently displayed term with accompanying materials. As legal publishers continue to launch AI-driven research tools in Canada, what do students and other novice researchers need to know to be prepared for their first forays into legal research? Lexis recently launched the latest version of their legal research platform, Lexis+ Canada, for Canadian law schools. It features significant updates that employ artificial intelligence, including a “Brief Analysis” tool in line with similar products offered by Westlaw Edge (on the US platform) and vLex (already available in Canada). According to Lexis+, this tool helps researchers “expedite completion of briefs and other legal documents.” Once your document is uploaded, it spits out a report including the following categories: 1) recommended cases, 2) cases and legislation cited in your document, 3) jurisdiction, and 4) extracted and recommended concepts. While I do not intend to comment on the utility of this tool for practitioners, I have no doubt that students beginning law school or working in summer or articling positions are bound to encounter this new feature sooner or later. When you do, you may have questions: should I be using this tool? How or how not? The landing page for this tool in Lexis+ contains no information on how this tool works and the Lexis+ Canada “Help” database so far contains minimal documentation. Confusion or uncertainty is understandable with such opacity. To gain some insight, let’s run an experiment: take two case comments written by different authors on the same Supreme Court case from 2004. [1] An older decision means that we should retrieve an abundance of recommendations from the intervening 18 years. Both comments include an overview of the area of law at the time of this decision as well as an analysis of how this particular decision would change the area of law. Once Lexis analyzed these documents, I exported the resulting report and compared the results for each comment. Here are the two documents, in case you’d like to run the experiment yourself: Comment A: Teresa Scassa, “Recalibrating Copyright Law?: A Comment on the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in CCH Canadian Limited et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada ”, Case Comment, (2004) 3:2 CJLT 89. Comment B: WL Hayhurst, “The Canadian Supreme Court on Copyright: CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada ”, Case Comment, (2004-2005) 41 Can Bus LJ 134. Recommended Cases “Recommendations” is the section of the Brief Analysis report that lists additional case law for you to consider adding to your legal document. Brief Analysis recommended 58 unique cases in total between Comment A and Comment B. However, only 10 of those cases were the same between the two documents (after adjusting for “recommended” cases that were actually cited in the other document). See Figure 1 . Key takeaway: Legal research and writing is an art, not a science. AI-driven tools like these run on the material that you upload, so you can expect substantially different results depending on the quality of analysis and the decisions you made in producing the original document. This does not mean that there is no value in using the tool, but you cannot expect it to help you build something from nothing. Recommendations are based on the content in the document,","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:49 +0100","url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12957419","titre":"CALL Member Article: Thoughts on the New Lexis+ Brief Analysis Tool: For Law Students and Novice Researchers"},{"id":3241460,"description":"By: Susannah Tredwell , Manager of Library Services at DLA Piper (Canada) LLP and James Bachmann , Instructional Librarian, Law Library, University of British Columbia Since 1988, when CALL/ACBD’s Copyright Committee was first set up, CALL/ACBD has advocated for its members' interests in the area of copyright. While the primary focus of CALL/ACBD’s copyright advocacy over the last few years has been on Crown copyright and primary law, CALL/ACBD has also made submissions about such areas as fair dealing and licencing. CALL/ACBD sees this work as not only supporting the needs of its members but also as serving the interests of access to justice as a whole. Continuing this work, on January 18, 2022 CALL/ACBD, along with Library Futures Institute, will act as an intervener in the Supreme Court of Canada case Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, et al. v. Entertainment Software Association, et al.   Kim Nayyer, CALL/ACBD’s President, and Robert Janes of JFK Law   will be representing CALL/ACBD and Library Futures. This case addresses the question of how the concepts of “communication to the public by telecommunication” and “making available on demand” as used in the Copyright Act should be understood. The outcome of this case has the potential to significantly impact various library activities, including controlled digital lending and possibly even the simple use of hyperlinks, particularly in light of the limited scope of current library and education exceptions in the Copyright Act . CALL/ACBD's submitted that the court refrain from broadly construing the terms “making available” and “Communication to the Public by Telecommunication” and that s. 2.4(1.1) of the act (\"Communication to the public by telecommunication\")   does not need to be understood as creating a new right.   You can find CALL/ACBD’s intervener's factum at https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39418/FM050_Intervener_Canadian-Association-Law-Libraries-et-al.pdf . The other factums in this case are available at https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39418 .  CALL/ACBD has acted as an intervener at the Supreme Court of Canada on two other occasions. In Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc. , which looked at Crown copyright, CALL/ACBD submitted   that “s. 12 Crown copyright does not extend to primary sources of law”. In York University v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency  (\"Access Copyright\"), CALL/ACBD submitted   that the SCC “should resist the temptation to modify or clarify the existing fair dealing test” stating that the existing test “is a flexible multifactorial test that allows libraries (and other institutions) to tailor access and appropriate copying policies that consider all relevant circumstances.” CALL/ACBD also made submissions to the 2018 review of the Copyright Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42: one general submission   and