Chilly Climate 2.0: Women’s Experiences of Harassment and Discrimination in Canadian Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines the extent to which issues identified in Breaking Anonymity (The Chilly Collective, 1995) are still salient despite new EDI mandates/programs which support increased research excellence through EDI principles. We present survey results for Canadian academics who identify as women (n = 244) regarding their experiences with gender-based harassment and discrimination. Our analysis identified three categories of patriarchal gendered control: (1) overt practices, (2) covert practices, and (3) a systematic effort to silence the reporting of these experiences. We highlight the voices of women academics as they provide personal insights into the continuing barriers through their experiences. Through their stories, the implications of existing overt and covert harassment and discrimination practices are discussed. Our study provides an overview of women academics’ experiences with oppression by their male colleagues and contributes to research exploring equity and inclusion in higher education and the continued need to work toward gender equity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.054 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".