COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT ANTI‐CORRUPTION PROJECT: ‘WHISTLEBLOWING’ MODEL LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes This paper was originally presented at the Meeting of Commonwealth Law Ministers and Senior Officials, held in Edinburgh on 7–10 July 2008. More information on the work of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Division of the Commonwealth Secretariat may be found online at http://www.thecommonwealth.org/subhomepage/38066/. 1 Suggestion by Malaysia that 'miscarriage of justice' be a phrase which will include different types of acts in different jurisdictions. Malaysia suggests that the phrase, here, should be limited to acts which occur in the context of employee‐employer relationships. In view of such uncertainties, Malaysia proposes that a further study of the phrase and its context be conducted by Commonwealth Secretariat, followed, if necessary, by the issuing of a guidance note. An alternative approach may be to add a footnote to the model provisions reminding States that the phrase may be explicitly defined by a State in drafting its national law. 2 In relation to Canada's suggestion, Malaysia queries what standard should determine what amounts to 'gross mismanagement'. (Secretariat suggestion: An objective test of whether the standard of management falls far below what would be expected of a reasonable and competent manager in the relevant circumstances?).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".