MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1517566539 · doi:10.22329/celt.v5i0.3403

11. Referencing and Citation for Graduate Students: Gain Without Pain

2012· article· en· W1517566539 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ed S. Krol, Lisa Krol

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentCitationClass (philosophy)Graduate studentsMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogyMedical educationComputer scienceMedicineLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is to share with other educators a teaching method that was developed to help graduate students, and potentially undergraduate students, understand how to properly reference and cite academic papers. In an attempt to teach rather than reprimand, a new teaching practice was developed for a graduate class at the University of Saskatchewan. The innovative assignment gave graduate students a short literature review to complete independently. The project then became a formative assessment of their referencing and citation skills. Student response was overwhelmingly positive. Upon successful completion, the instructor was assured of the students’ understanding of appropriate referencing and citation practices.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207