Motivating Ministers to Morality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This title was first published in 2002: Political ethics is a rapidly growing field in disciplines such as political science, philosophy, applied ethics and public policy and it has become a major topic in current affairs’ reporting of politics. This book discusses the most prominent subjects - and occasional victims - of the ethics debate: government ministers. It is the first major work to discuss institutional reforms around the world that target ministerial morality and asks: how are these reforms influencing the motivation and conduct of the most powerful of our politicians? The book provides unique insights into ministerial behaviour and the changing role of institutions in influencing the ethics of the executive, with analyses from around the world. Contributors to the volume include international high-profile players in political ethics. They include Lord Nolan, the first Chairman of Britain's Joint Parliamentary Committee on Standards in Public Life; Professor Robert J. Jackson, a leading Canadian political scientist instrumental in establishing the Canadian Office of the Ethics Counsellor; and Associate Professor Noel Preston, the leading commentator on ethics in Australian politics, who has been involved in developing a number of its ethical regimes.
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 | 0.022 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".