MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W99599792 · doi:10.12987/9780300135305-027

25. Pornography as Sexual Harassment in Canada

2017· book-chapter· en· W99599792 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueYale University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarassmentPornographyFirst amendmentSupreme courtPolitical scienceDutyFree speechCriminologyLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The display or use of pornography in the workplace is recognized as a form of sexual harassment by provincial human rights tribunals in Canada. Although few decisions have considered this issue, tribunals have held that the presence of pornography in the workplace creates an unequal working environment for women. Unlike the situation in the United States where certain kinds of sexual harassment, including workplace pornography, are protected speech under the First Amendment, there have been no serious free speech arguments in Canadian sexual harassment cases. This essay considers why this is so, and suggests that the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ross v. School District No. 15 (upholding the disciplining of a teacher for off-duty racist speech, against his freedom of expression claim) makes the success of a similar challenge to sexual harassment laws unlikely.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.220 · 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