Problematizing Sexual Harassment in Residential Long-Term Care: The Need for a More Ethical Prevention Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La promotion des droits sexuels dans les établissements de soins de longue durée est complexe sur le plan éthique, étant donné que ce milieu est à la fois une résidence et un lieu de travail. Bien que les données empiriques démontrent que le bien-être des soignants professionnels et des résidents sont inextricablement liés, les politiques publiques au Canada ne reconnaissent généralement pas cette relation et continuent de se concentrer isolément sur le bien-être des résidents ou des travailleurs. Les conséquences problématiques de cette situation sont particulièrement mises en évidence lorsque l'on considère les défis associés à la prévention du harcèlement sexuel envers les travailleurs, dans un contexte où l'on ne veut pas restreindre indûment la liberté d'expression sexuelle des résidents atteints de démence. Nous avons utilisé l'approche « Quel est le problème représenté ? » ("What's the Problem Represented to be?") de Carol Bacchi pour analyser de façon critique un plan d'action canadien récent visant à prévenir la violence et le harcèlement sexuels. Notre analyse suggère que cette approche de prévention du harcèlement sexuel n'est pas une politique publique prometteuse et pourrait même contribuer à augmenter le phénomène qu'elle vise à corriger. Il est donc urgent de concentrer les efforts de prévention sur les facteurs structurels de ce phénomène afin de soutenir les droits sexuels des soignants et des résidents. Supporting sexual rights in residential long-term care is ethically complex. The well-being of care workers and residents is inextricably linked, and increasingly recognized empirically, yet public policy in Canada generally continues to exclusively focus on either the well-being of residents or workers. The consequences of this are particularly evident when we consider how to prevent sexual harassment towards workers without unjustly restricting the freedom of sexual expression for residents living with dementia. Employing Carol Bacchi’s “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” approach, we critically analysed a recent Canadian action plan to prevent sexual violence and harassment. Our analysis suggests that this policy is less than promising and may reproduce the very phenomenon it is intended to redress. The need to refocus prevention efforts on the structural factors implicated in this phenomenon is urgent if we are to support the sexual rights of both care workers and residents.
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 | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".