“I’m Not Thinking of It as Sexual Harassment”
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do diverse groups of women in Canada define sexual harassment? To answer this question requires incorporating race and citizenship into the analysis of sexual harassment. The authors use data from seven focus groups of Canadian women. The white women with full citizenship rights most easily identify with existing legal understandings of sexual harassment and believe they have the right to report their harassment. For women of color and women without full citizenship rights, issues of racialized sexual harassment emerge as central factors in their harassment experience. Black women with full citizenship rights call into question whether the term sexual harassment captures their experiences. Filipinas working as live-in caregivers on limited visas demonstrate how racism and lack of citizenship changes definitions of sexual harassment. Their experiences of harassment combine elements of isolation due to their lack of citizenship, racialized sexual harassment, and abuse. The authors argue that intersectional analyses are needed to understand women’s harassment experiences and their ability to complain and seek legal recourse.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it