MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DARK SIDE CASE: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Ghomeshi Sex Scandal

2016· article· en· W2765331240 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cara-Lynn Scheuer, Jean Helms Mills, J. Kay Keels

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Law and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarassmentGreat RiftCorporationLawPower (physics)CriticismPolitical scienceSociologyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This teaching case explores the problematic nature of contemporary organizations by provoking discussion on the 'dark side' issues of the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC). Topics of particular importance are those pertaining to discrimination, sexual harassment, ethics, gender, age, and culture, as well as the deep structures of power that privilege certain individuals and groups at the expense of others. The focal story in the case is the sex scandal that erupted with one of CBC's most esteemed hosts, Jian Ghomeshi. On October 26, 2014, CBC severed ties with Ghomeshi after he shared with them graphic evidence involving a violent sexual encounter with a woman he had dated. After parting ways, allegations of sexual harassment, assault, abuse, and other wrongful exchanges, including charges from those who had worked with Ghomeshi at CBC, began flooding the media outlets. In the wake of the scandal, CBC had come under much criticism, particularly with respect to how the organization had handled -- or rather mishandled - - Ghomeshi during his employment. This case explores the various factors that contributed to the existence and persistence of Ghomeshi's wrongful behaviours and their effects on the various stakeholders involved, most notably the employees.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicBusiness Law and EthicsFrench-language works237,207