Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whistleblowing systems serve as a vehicle for change, empowerment, and ethical/social responsibility. Organizational whistleblowing is a socially complex phenomenon that impacts people and organizations across various disciplines and sectors. Whistleblowing is a high-stakes act involving the dissemination of highly sensitive information about multiple actors with tangling stakes/interests. These features inherently make the task of designing effective whistleblowing systems (WS) a challenging one. To address this, our paper develops key design objectives (DO’s) for effective WS. We do this by conducting a qualitative literature review of whistleblowing research and by availing elements from design science methods and stakeholder theory. We present four key DO’s for effective WS, which we support with a whistleblowing news dataset. This paper serves as a first step in developing design principles (DP’s) for effective WS. This research contributes to a growing discourse on organizational whistleblowing in the IS community.
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 | 0.025 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".