Assessing Sexually Harassing Conduct in the Workplace: An Analysis of BC Human Rights Tribunal Decisions in 2010–16
Bibliographic record
Abstract
C’est dans les années 1980 que le harcèlement sexuel au travail a d’abord été reconnu comme une forme de discrimination. Depuis lors, les concepts de harcèlement sexuel et de discrimination ont considérablement évolué. Le présent article examine comment les tribunaux des droits de la personne abordent les plaintes en matière de harcèlement sexuel au travail à la lumière d’une analyse de décisions rendues par le Tribunal des droits de la personne de la Colombie-Britannique, de 2010 à 2016. En observant la façon dont le tribunal détermine ce qui constitue le harcèlement sexuel, l’auteure suggère que, bien que les tribunaux des droits de la personne comprennent et analysent de mieux en mieux les plaintes de harcèlement sexuel, il subsiste des limites inhérentes à la nature individualiste de la loi antidiscrimination et aux principes juridiques régissant les plaintes de harcèlement sexuel.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".