The Legal Framework for Sexual Harassment at Work in Australia and in Québec: Case Studies of Complexity and Its Countervailing Forces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses the complex legal framework for sexual harassment at work in Australia and Québec using Peter Schuck’s (1992) definition of complexity and drawing on Alejandro Camacho and Robert Glicksman’s (2019) model of the dimensions of authority and how they combine with the different functions an authority carries out. In both Australia and Québec, overlapping institutions and approaches can improve enforcement, especially when they are coordinated. overlap is less likely to improve matters if the focus is on standard-setting, where uniformity is important to ensure the clarity, transparency, and legitimacy of the rules for duty holders and workers. Harmonisation of legal definitions of sexual harassment and timelines can mitigate the negative impact of the law’s complexity, as can dovetailing (specifying in one law how its provisions fit with the provisions of another law). In terms of recourse and prevention of sexual harassment, some of the benefits of human rights expertise can sometimes be conserved even if there is centralised recourse under labour law. However, in both Australia and Québec, collaboration between human rights institutions and labour law institutions emerges as a major challenge. Empirical research is necessary to grasp the opportunities that fragmentation may provide to sexually harassed workers as compared to the barriers it creates. Finally, both in Québec and Australia, legislative reform aimed at reducing legal complexity has simultaneously increased it. To prevent such “rebound” complexity, initiatives designed to reduce complexity must be examined with respect to the scope of the legislation as well as from the perspective of subject matter.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".