Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 The IJEI only accepts original, previously unpublished work.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/
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.392 | 0.288 |
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".