MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1869933348 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3164

Plagiarism Detection in Code-Based Assignments

2010· article· en· W1869933348 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M. Oullet, D. Guay, J. Watso, P. Morneau-Gagnon, C. Martel, Ettore Merlo

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlagiarism detectionComputer scienceProgramming languageCode (set theory)Natural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many engineering and computer science programs include computer based courses in which students are evaluated on code that they write individually or in groups.Plagiarism of code is typically difficult to detect, because courses have several markers, who cannot readily compare current submissions to those of students in other classes or in previous years.Our team is currently developing a plagiarism detection Web service that allows instructors to submit code and detect similarities between assignments and between projects.The interface is Web-based and is designed to smoothly integrate into instructors' marking activities.The presented Web service compares all uploaded assignments, and identifies structural similarities.Since our service is based on structural analysis, superficial changes to variable names or control statements are not enough to conceal plagiarism.The results of similarity analysis are summarized in a simple format that indicates which assignments are the most similar and reports differences between assignments at the fine grain level of lexical tokens.The strength of this automated approach is that it removes the burden of plagiarism detection from instructors.In addition, it is fully repeatable and also provides a high level of accuracy with no false negatives.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0170.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Research integrity

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Methods

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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchCategoryResearch integrityFrench-language works237,207