An exploration of the role of Canadian academic libraries in promoting 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 incidence of student plagiarism at Canadian universities and colleges is cause for concern. As a result, Canadian universities are increasingly using text-matching software such as Turnitin to address the problem of cut-and-paste plagiarism. An exploratory survey was conducted at Canadian research-intensive universities subscribing to Turnitin to examine the role of librarians in educating students and faculty about academic integrity. Results indicate that librarians at these institutions are actively involved in promoting academic integrity and deterring plagiarism. At most institutions surveyed, discussions of academic integrity and the ethical use of information are included in library workshops and library instructional materials. These results, while preliminary, are an important first step to encourage libraries to consider their role within universities for promoting academic integrity. This is a revised version of a paper presented at LILAC 2005: Librarians Information Literacy Annual Conference, Imperial College, London, April 4-6, 2005.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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