Whistleblowing and silence: temporal dynamics in the Home Bank of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study elucidates the intricate interplay and temporal dynamics surrounding the shifts among voice, silence, and exit within a whistleblowing trajectory. It specifically unpacks the transition from internal voice to external whistleblowing by addressing the critical questions of “why”, “how”, and “when”. Thereby, the study offers valuable insights into the temporal evolution of the whistleblowing process, contextualized by the catastrophic bankruptcy of the Home Bank of Canada. Design/methodology/approach The research employs a qualitative methodology to conduct a comprehensive analysis of archival data spanning the entire operational history of the Home Bank. This dataset includes hearings and evidence from Royal Commission reports, as well as newspaper articles, magazine features, and annual reports from the Home Bank (1906–1923). The analysis covers documents from its inception in 1903 to its closure in 1923 and the subsequent bankruptcy period (1923–1925). The study period includes two significant events in 1916 and 1918, during which allied whistleblowers escalated their concerns to external authorities regarding suspected fraudulent activities at the Home Bank. Findings The findings extend the understanding of the temporal dynamics governing the shifts between voice, silence, and exit within whistleblowing trajectories. Furthermore, they reveal how these transitions are shaped by the interplay between altruistic and self-interest discourses, alongside the responses and actions of senior management. This nuanced perspective provides deeper insights into the evolving nature of whistleblowing behavior and its relationship with organizational responses. Originality/value By addressing the “why”, “how”, and “when” of interactions between voice, silence, and exit, the findings offer a more nuanced understanding of whistleblowing dynamics, transcending the limitations of prior “snapshot” analyses. Historicizing the temporality of voicing and whistleblowing as an evolving and dynamic process provides a means to surface the hidden heritage of the past and enables a deeper understanding of the persistent gaps that continue to impede the effectiveness of contemporary whistleblowing mechanisms.
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 | 0.097 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".