Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article provides a critical analysis of the values approach to public‐sector ethics, particularly as it has been developed in Ottawa. The central tenet of this approach is that a framework of core values can be used directly by public servants to solve ethical dilemmas or to justify more specific rules of behaviour. The author argues that this approach is conceptually flawed on a number of levels. Its advocates seem confused about what a value is and how to identify core values. They also seem tolerant of the existence of a large number of core values that are not clearly defined. This inevitably creates a situation in which there is substantial value conflict and no way to resolve such clashes. Finally, the values approach, at least as structured in Ottawa, subdivides values into groups, making a puzzling distinction between ethical and non‐ethical values. After examining these flaws, the article explores the need to pay more attention to consequentiality approaches for enhancing ethical behaviour that resonate with the ways in which public servants intuitively approach ethical judgments. Sommaire: Cet article fait une analyse critique de l'éthique dans le secteur public fondée sur les valeurs, plus particulièrement la façon dont cette approche a étéélaborée à Ottawa. Cette approche repose essentiellement sur le principe que les fonctionnaires peuvent se servir d'un cadre directeur de valeurs fondamentales pour résoudre des dilemmes moraux ou pour justifier des règles de comportement plus précises. L'auteur soutient que sur le plan conceptuel, cette approche comporte des lacunes à plusieurs niveaux. Ses partisans ne semblent pas trop savoir ce qu'est une valeur ni comment dégager les valeurs fondamentales. Le fait qu'un grand nombre de valeurs fondamentales ne soient pas clairement définies ne semble pas non plus les déranger. On se trouve inévitablement en face d'une situation de conflits de valeurs sans moyens de les résoudre. Enfin, cette approche fondée sur les valeurs, tout au nioins telle que structurée par Ottawa, les subdivise en groupes, faisant Line étrange distinction entre les valeurs éthiques et non‐éthiques. Apres avoir examiné ces lacunes, I'article explore la nécessité de s'intéresser davantage aux approches conséquentialistes pour valoriser le comportement éthique, qui font écho aux façons dont les fonctionnaires abordent d'instinct les jugements moraux.
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 | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.097 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| 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".