How do faculty members respond to their students' discussions of academic misconduct and academic integrity?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study conducted a qualitative analysis of faculty members? perceptions, beliefs and instructional concerns regarding academic integrity in their classrooms following their observation of their students engaged in a 45-minute interactive presentation on academic integrity. Overall, seven overarching themes and a series of sub-themes were identified including the following: comfort level and knowledge about academic integrity issues (for faculty and for students), impressions about the interactive presentation, student engagement in the presentations, learning outcomes for faculty, safeguards against misconduct, and issues, consequences and proposed solutions to concerns. Key findings within these themes suggest that faculty members perceived themselves to be confident in their own understanding of what constitutes academic integrity; however, there were inconsistencies regarding whether their students had the requisite knowledge to make appropriate decisions. Faculty members were surprised by the frank and engaged interactions of their students during the interactive presentations. Only half of the faculty found the presentation content enhanced their own current knowledge. Faculty identified several methods they use to safeguard against academic misconduct, and identified the importance of both faculty and the institution providing a consistent and clear model to promote academic integrity in students. Discussion explores insights gained as a context for informing instructional practice.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it