MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791178834 · doi:10.11575/prism/34035

Wrongdoing at Work: Who Ya Gonna Call?

2006· article· en· W2791178834 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Bowal

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Law and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWrongdoingWork (physics)Political scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One can report the wrongdoing to lateral co-workers but they might not be able or willing to take effective action. If this does not work, the whistleblower might move "up the ladder" in the organization, by reporting the wrongdoing to one's supervisor. This is risky, especially if the supervisor or senior managers do not care about or do not believe the wrongdoing is occurring or if they are directing it. As George Orwell said, "during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." Nevertheless, supervisors can investigate, take corrective action, explain and clarify any misunderstandings. Don't we owe our employers that minimum loyalty? [Linda Merk] had only gone to her bosses and the union president before she was fired. Had she made her complaints to a "lawful authority" as described in the legislation? At the first hearing, Merk lost. Her case was dismissed. An appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench led to a conviction against the employer. In a further appeal to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in 2003, Merk lost again in a 2-1 decision. "...would discourage the internal resolution of alleged misconduct by withholding whistleblower protection unless and until the employee goes 'outside' to the enforcement authorities of the state. ...protection should be extended to employees who first blow the whistle to the boss or other persons inside the employer organization who have the 'lawful authority' to deal with the problem. If the problem is not resolved internally, then employees can go 'outside' to the police or another enforcement agency, but in order to obtain the protection of s. 74, it is not necessary that they do so. ...there may well be circumstances where an employee is fully justified in not seeking an internal remedy but in going directly to the police, as where (for example) it is feared that the employer may destroy evidence. Whether or not an employee is justified in bypassing internal remedies will depend on the circumstances. ...a suitable 'lawful authority' may be found inside as well as outside the employer organization, and if an employee chooses to go the inside route and suffers retaliation, the protection of s. 74 is still available."

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.020
Scholarly communication0.0140.017
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0160.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicBusiness Law and EthicsFrench-language works237,207