“Tell me where it hurts”: workplace sexual harassment compensation and the regulation of hysterical victims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract : Informed by a feminist analysis, the author examines a new development in the legal responses to workplace sexual harassment in Quebec. Sexual harassment has been recognized as a psychological injury, compensable through the province’s Commission des accidents de travail. This classification was confirmed in the Béliveau-St-Jacques case, in which an alleged victim of workplace sexual harassment filed a civil suit seeking damages from her employer based on both the civil liability regime and the antidiscrimination and anti-harassment clauses of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada found that Quebec’s Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases (“AIAOD”) extinguishes the right to all civil remedies for workplace injuries, including punitive damages in cases of intentional and illegal violations of a protected right. This approach was subsequently entrenched in the new psychological harassment provisions of the Labour Standards Act. The author discusses the implications of Béliveau-St- Jacques for victims of sexual harassment, particularly women. While the decision goes far in recognizing the systemic nature of sexual harassment in the workplace, it also somewhat illogically includes violations of fundamental rights within the ambit of “occupational hazards.” Responding to sexual harassment through the no-fault workplace compensation scheme causes the distress and anguish experienced by sexual harassment victims to be assessed as a medical condition. Women become the objects of an administrative regime that causes them to suffer further affronts to their dignity. The author contrasts the legal treatment of sexual harassment with that of a different harm to dignity—defamation, which constitutes a narrow exception to the exclusion of civil remedies under the AIAOD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".