Harassment Prevention Strategies for the Canadian Public Service – A Qualitative Analysis of Policy Effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is an analysis of the federal government of Canada’s harassment policy and practices. It examines how the federal government addresses allegations of harassment and the management of the harassment complaint process in the workplace. The framework for this study combines a review of the existing central agency policy mandates of the Canadian public service, related documentation as well as various literatures published internationally and nationally. It will address both the effectiveness of the current policy and areas of weaknesses and what can be done from a central agency perspective. The federal government has faced considerable media coverage in the past few years with reports revealing that bullying, harassment and mobbing are on the rise as are the number of mental health disability claims. The consequences of workplace harassment are enormous, not just towards the individual who faces harassment but to the organization as well. Therefore, the final objective of this paper is to recommend new prevention strategies. Because there are many causes of unethical behaviour, the availability of multiple preventative options is required as is the aptitude to apply the most suitable remedy.
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 | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".