The individual versus the state: status and role of the whistleblower
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The institute of whistle-blower’s aim is to publicly warn of the illegal actions of certain individuals in public sector activity. The word « whistle-blower » denotes a person or individual brave enough, out of moral beliefs and despite the risks they are putting themselves under, for personal integrity who decides to openly and publicly speak out about some illegal or unethical behavior by their superiors. Anglo-Saxon countries historically have a greater tendency to protect and acknowledge whistle-blowers than continental countries. For example, in the United States in 1863 the False Claim Act was brought in with the aim of protecting against the corruption of government suppliers. Whistle-blowers’ rights in the United State of America are specific. They stress the importance of rewarding which particularly relates to taxation and financial fraud cases. Author describes examples of United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Germany, Bosnia and Hercegovina. In the Republic of France, the whistleblower has special status, coherence and efficiency, which s/he has acquired thanks to legislative reforms of 2016. For years, international organizations have been promoting the importance of institutional and normative frameworks for regulating whistleblowers. Affirming the institute of whistle-blowers was particularly stressed by the Council of Europe Recommendation of 2014 on the protection of whistle-blowers. This suggests member states establish an all-inclusive framework for the protection of those who report irregularities in the context of work relations. Also stated are principles such as directives to assist in formulation. Within the framework of the European Union, the European Parliament on 14 February 2017 adopted the Resolution on the role of whistle-blowers in the protection of the financial interests of the European Union, referring to the all-inclusive European Program for the protection of whistleblowers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".