Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Welcome to Volume 3, Issue 1 of the International Journal for Educational Integrity.
 
 Since the last issue, the journal has received a large number of submissions; unfortunately, however, most of the submissions did not meet the journal's publishing criteria and were therefore rejected by the reviewers. Reasons for rejection included the following:
 
 The topic was not relevant to the readership of the IJEI. While the journal necessarily covers a broad and interdisciplinary range of topics, this does not mean that anything vaguely related to education will be reviewed and/or accepted.
 The submission was a thinly disguised version of an an already published paper. The IJEI only accepts original, previously unpublished work. If the paper has previously been presented at a conference, but not published in the proceedings, it will be considered eligible for review. However, please ensure that all related work is appropriately self-cited. For those interested in the controversial topic of selfplagiarism,
 please see the recent publication:
 
 Bretag, T. & Carapiet, S. (2007), A preliminary study to determine the extent of selfplagiarism in Australian academic research, in Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication and Falsification. Vol 2(5), 1-15. http://www.plagiary.org/ 
 
 The standard of work, from both a research and presentation perspective, was not of an appropriate standard. The IJEI encourages scholars from a variety of educational environments to submit papers, but asks that authors seek editorial assistance where necessary to ensure the readability of the submission. Early career researchers are encouraged to seek assistance with methodology and presentation of findings.
 
 After delaying publication of the journal for some months, I am pleased to publish the current issue with four high-quality and diverse papers. The first, by Geoffrey Crisp from the University of Adelaide, reports on the results of an online staff survey on attitudes to plagiarism issues and the resources in place at that institution to deal with plagiarism. In the second paper, Lorie Kloda and Karen Nicholson from McGill University in Quebec, explore the role of libraries in Canada to promote academic integrity. The third paper looks at educational integrity from a very different point of view. Mike Steer and Frances Gentle, from the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children in Newcastle, Australia, discuss educational integrity in the context of providing 'educational accommodations' to students who are blind or visually impaired. The fourth and final paper in this issue also takes an unusual perspective. Martin Lipscomb, from the University of the West of England, presents an exemplar homophobic argument as a means of calling for 'communicative integrity' between educators and students. Lipscomb makes the case that communicative integrity is a necessary pre-requisite for open dialogue in moral education. All four papers make a valuable and unique contribution to the field.
 
 Given our experience with the current issue, we have decided to publish papers as soon as they have been accepted by reviewers and all recommended revisions have been made. This will not only change the 'look' of the journal, but will ensure that new work is disseminated in a timely fashion. It is anticipated that this will also encourage others researching in the broad field of academic/educational integrity to write and submit high quality papers to the IJEI.
 
 Finally, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Helen Marsden for her contribution as a Foundation Editor on the journal in 2005 and 2006. Helen has accepted a position with the Department of Education, Science and Training in Canberra, and we wish her all the best in this next exciting phase of her career.
 
 I hope readers enjoy the current issue, and I look forward to receiving submissions for the next issue/s, or for the upcoming 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity: Creating a Culture of Integrity, to be held at the University of South Australia, 6-7 December 2007. Please send all submissions for both media to me directly at tracey.bretag@unisa.edu.au.
 
 Tracey Bretag,
 Editor, International Journal for Educational Integrity.
 Co-Chair, 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity: Creating a Culture of Integrity
 http://www.unisa.edu.au/educationalintegrity/conference/
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle