Debating a whistle‐blower protection act for employees of the Government of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Based on the premise that whistle‐blowing is most appropriately regarded as a morally ambiguous activity, this article examines how the Liberal government of Paul Martin came to propose a bill designed to encourage and to protect public servants who disclose serious wrongdoing. Written at the time when Bill C‐11 (the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act) was still before Parliament, the article argues that the existing administrative policy on internal disclosure was judged prematurely to have failed. The complications of measuring the success of any whistle‐blowing regime are noted. The comparative experience of four countries where whistle‐blower protection laws exist demonstrates that the benefits of such laws in terms of promoting “right‐doing” and correcting wrongdoing have been oversold. The article challenges the predominant view that a new parliamentary agency is necessary to deal with whistle‐blowing. Ultimately, the success of any law will depend less on its detailed provisions and far more on a political and administrative culture in government that supports ethical awareness and responsible behavior. Sommaire: Fondé sur la prémisse selon laquelle la dénonciation est considérée à juste titre comme me activité moralement ambiguë, le présent article examine la manière dont le gouvernement libéral de Paul Martin en est arrivé a adopter un project de loi visant à encourager et à protéger les functionaries qui dénoncent les fautes sérieuses. Rédigé alors que le project de loi C‐11 (Project de loi sur la protection des fonctionnaires dénonciateurs) était encore divan le Parlement, l'article prétend que la politique administrative existante sur la dénonciation interne a été prématurément accusée d'avoir échoué. Les complications consistant à mesurer le succès de tout régime de dénonciation sont notées. L'expérience comparative de quatre pays où il existe des lois sur la protection des dénonciateurs démontre que les avantages de telles lois en ce qui concerne la promotion des bienfaits et la correction des méfaits ont été exagérés. L'article contest l'opinion prédominante selon laquelle il est nécessaire d'avoir un nouvel organisme parlementaire pour traiter de la dénonciation. En fin de compete, le succès de toute loi dépendra moins de ses dispositions détaillées et beaucoup plus d'une culture politique et administrative au sein du gouvernement qui favorise la prise de conscience éthique et les comportements responsables.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".