MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484790156

The role of the university Academic Integrity Advisor

2009· article· en· W1484790156 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
James Lee, Charles Sumbler

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Online (University of Wollongong) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsAcademic integrityVariety (cybernetics)Inclusion (mineral)Promotion (chess)Public relationsHigher educationPrincipal (computer security)Academic institutionEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceInstitutionSociologyManagementEngineeringComputer scienceSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Queen’s University is a comprehensive, research-intensive, but highly decentralized institution located in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. As part of a new institutional paradigm embracing the broader, proactive principles of academic integrity, a new university role was created, known as the Academic Integrity (AI) Advisor to the Vice-Principal (Academic). Focusing on three key areas – awareness, education, and policy and procedures – the Advisor has broad responsibility for AI policy development, information gathering and sharing, and for promotion of the values of academic integrity. Free from the challenges of handling specific cases, the AI Advisor can focus on establishing best-practices in the three key areas, by drawing on the research, experiences, and analysis of other institutional practices from the Canadian and international environments. Numerous university-wide initiatives targeted at students, instructors and faculty members, and administrators, have brought together a variety of institutional partners to raise the profile of AI across the university. By building on a principle of broad institutional inclusion, this position thus provides a dynamic lens through which a variety of academic-integrity issues faced within and by universities, both centralized and decentralized, can be discussed and effectively addressed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Online (University of Wollongong)Same topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207