MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7108623925 · doi:10.71889/5fylantbak.30788759

Public Servants "Serving" Themselves: Occupational Fraud In Government

2017· article· W7108623925 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAppalachian State University · 2017
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbezzlementGovernment (linguistics)MisconductClientelismHouse of CommonsSubject (documents)Government Office

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 1990 to 2012, Rita Crundwell committed the largest municipal embezzlement in U.S. history, stealing more than $53 million from the city of Dixon, Illinois. As city comptroller and treasurer, she secretly opened a bank account in the name of Dixon that only she controlled. Crundwell transferred money from city bank accounts into her illegitimate account, concealing the movement through fictitious invoices she submitted to the city. She used the money to finance a lavish lifestyle that included multiple residences, numerous vehicles, jewelry, and multiple horse-farming operations for her championship show horses. After another city employee accidentally discovered the secret account, Crundwell admitted her guilt and received a 20-year sentence. Crundwell’s fraud was alarming, audacious, and attention-getting — enough to be the subject of television episodes (such as CNBC’s American Greed and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s The Fifth Estate) and a documentary movie (All the Queen’s Horses). However, it was not an isolated event. Occupational fraud in government is such a common occurrence that it should be a major concern to all government organizations and constituents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAppalachian State UniversitySame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207