Regard critique sur le droit français du harcèlement sexuel au travail à la lumière du droit américain et du droit canadien
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A few months after having enacted a criminal statute creating the general offence of sexual harassment, the French Parliament enacted the Statute n° 92-1179 "relative a l'abus d'autorite en matiere sexuelle dans les relations de travail". In this statute, as in the criminal statute, the French legislator considers sexual harassment in a peculiar way, and departs from the North-American position on three points: First, while American law and Canadian law understand clearly sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination, the French approach is more ambiguous. It appears that the French legislator understands sexual harassment more as an infringement to freedom than a form of sex discrimination. Second, the French legislator has defined sexual harassment in a more restrictive way than in North America. While American law and Canadian law prohibit hostile harassment and sexual harassment by colleagues, these forms of sexual harassment are not prohibited in French law. Finally, on the question of the employer's liability, the French approach is more "timid" than in American law and in Canadian law. The French legislator has justified its more restrictive approach to the problem of sexual harassment in comparison with the North-American position by two arguments: the fear of the "American 'drift'" and the peculiarity of the relationships between women and men in France. However, it is argued that the choice of the French legislator is not convenient because it leaves a significant number of victims outside the scope of the law, and is not clear enough on the employer's obligations. Furthermore, it is maintained that both arguments of the legislator are more caricatural than real.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".