Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, blowing the whistle about something to others has been risky. Despite the increasing emphasis at work on equality, employee rights, workplace democracy, and quality of life issues, the whistleblower can be seen as disloyal or a snitch. The implied common law duty of the employee of fidelity to the employer can get one fired or cause one to suffer other retaliation for blowing the whistle at work. Unwanted whistleblowing is still likely to be seen today as sanctionable worksite misconduct. It can render one's job less secure or hurts one's chances of promotion. The federal Competition Act has similar provisions: 66.1 (1) Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed or intends to commit an offence under the Act, may notify the Commissioner of the particulars of the matter and may request that his or her identity be kept confidential with respect to the notification. (2) The Commissioner shall keep confidential the identity of a person who has notified the Commissioner 66.2 (1) No employer shall dismiss, suspend, demote, discipline, harass or otherwise disadvantage an employee, or deny an employee a benefit of employment, by reason that (a) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, has disclosed to the Commissioner that the employer or any other person has committed or intends to commit an offence under this Act International treaties also encourage whistleblowing as a method of law enforcement. In the environmental parallel accord to the NAFTA, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), the citizen complaint mechanism empowers the public to play a whistleblower role on matters of environmental law enforcement. Under Article 14, members of the public may submit a claim alleging a NAFTA partner has failed to effectively enforce its environmental law. Following a review of the submission, the Commission on Environmental Cooperation may investigate the matter and pursue a factual record of its findings. Section 74 of the Saskatchewan Labour Standards Act states, in part: "No employer shall discharge or threaten to discharge or in any manner discriminate against an employee because the employee (a) has reported or proposed to report to a lawful authority any activity that is or is likely to result in an offence pursuant to an Act." In the recent Merk decision, the employer's dismissal of the whistleblower was upheld. Merk had complained to her employer (a union) that two officers in the union had received unlawful payments. The judge concluded that that there may have been wrongdoing, but the internal investigator, a senior union official, was not a "lawful authority."
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 | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.009 |
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".