Ethics, values and behaviours: comparison of three case studies examining the paucity of leadership in government
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three societies with similar initiatives for public service re‐configuration and reform – the UK, Canada and Australia – are examined to highlight the many‐faceted issues of public service ethics and the different approaches these governments have taken to re‐building public trust and enhancing public service ethics in times of rapid change. These efforts for re‐building an ethical public service are scrutinized according to four criteria for effectively leading change. Changes of public service values are also analysed as well as their implications for public servants. Effectively, applied leadership is identified as the pillar of ethical practice – emphasizing the need for quality leadership development through on‐the‐job experience. Although legislation and codification are seen as necessary for building an ethical infrastructure that can help employees out of encountered dilemmas, the way forward is seen as nurturing an environment of trust and vigilance in which ethics are promoted through exemplary behaviour of leaders and employees alike.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".