MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139298759

La réforme des dispositions sur le harcèlement psychologique dans la Loi sur les normes du travail : l’appel à une plus grande sensibilité au genre sera-t-il entendu ? (Reforming the Provisions on Psychological Harassment in the Act Respecting Labour Standards: Will the Call for Greater Gender Sensitivity be Heard?)

2020· article· fr· W3139298759 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel Cox, Caroline Brodeur

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

French Abstract: En 2018, des amendements apportes a la Loi sur les normes du travail [ci-apres « LNT »] du Quebec modifient la definition du harcelement psychologique pour y inclure explicitement le harcelement a caractere sexuel. Ils importent certains aspects d’un paradigme juridique base sur le droit a l’egalite au regime de la LNT qui, jusqu’alors, n’etait base que sur le paradigme du droit a la dignite. En quoi ces amendements sont-ils susceptibles de bonifier le recours a l’encontre du harcelement psychologique pour les victimes de harcelement sexuel ? Cet article rapporte les resultats d’une etude empirique des decisions (2004–2018) portant sur les plaintes pour harcele- ment psychologique alors que les faits traduisent une situation de harcelement sexuel. Il revele que les amendements pallient certains obstacles rencontres par les personnes qui portent plainte pour harcelement psychologique mais que d’autres risquent de persister, entrainant le rejet de plaintes meme lorsque le harcelement sexuel a ete prouve. Par ailleurs, l’etude souligne quelques avantages de ce recours en comparaison avec celui de la Charte des droits et libertes de la personne : des delais plus courts pour le traitement des plaintes, ainsi que la possibilite de deposer en meme temps une plainte a l’encontre d’un congediement injuste ou d’une pratique interdite en vertu de la LNT. Les amendements confirment la mission de la Commission des normes, de l’equite salariale et de la sante et de la securite du travail et du Tribunal administratif du travail dans la mise en œuvre des droits des personnes salariees a un milieu de travail exempt de harcelement psychologique, y compris celui a caractere sexuel. Ils representent egalement un appel du legislateur a une plus grande sensibilite au genre dans la mise en œuvre de la LNT par ces institutions. English Abstract: In 2018, amendments to Quebec’s Act Respecting Labour Standards modified the definition of psychological harassment to explicitly include sexual harass- ment. The amendments imported certain aspects of the right to equality under the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms into a labour standards regime that previously had been solely based on the right to dignity at work. To what extent might these amendments improve recourse for victims of sexual harassment at work when they file a complaint for psychological harassment? This article reports on an empirical study of decisions (2004-2018) on psychological harassment where the facts amount to sexual harassment. It finds that certain obstacles encountered by psychological harassment claimants may be mitigated by the amendments. However, others are unaffected, and may continue to lead to rejection of complaints even when sexual harassment has been proven. The study nonetheless illustrates some advantages of a claim for psychological harassment: quicker complaint processing as well as the possibility of filing a complaint for unfair dismissal or prohibited practices under the Act Respecting Labour Standards. The amendments confirm the Commission des normes, de l’equite salariale et de la sante et de la securite du travail and the Administrative Labour Tribunal’s mandate to enforce employees’ rights to a work environment free from psychological harassment including harassment of a sexual nature. They also represent a signal from the legislator that these institutions could show more sensitivity to gender issues in implementing the Act Respecting Labour Standards’ provisions on psychological harassment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207