Students’ Source Misuse in Language Classrooms: Sharing Experiences
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
In this article we first provide a brief discussion of what is generally referred to as “student plagiarism,” which we prefer to call “source misuse” or “inappropriate textual borrowing,” and then provide some of the factors that may contribute to this problem in language classes. Moreover, we provide our views and sugges- tions on how to deal with these causes, drawing mainly on our experiences as students and teachers in both EFL and ESL contexts, but also making references to some conceptual frames and the related literature.Dans cet article, nous présentons d’abord une discussion brève de ce que l’on appelle communément « le plagiat étudiant » et ce que nous préférons nommer « un mauvais emploi des sources » ou « un emprunt textuel inapproprié ». Nous poursuivons en évoquant quelques-uns des facteurs qui pourraient entrainer ce problème dans les cours de langue. De plus, nous offrons nos avis et nos sugges- tions quant à la façon d’aborder ces causes en puisant surtout dans nos expéri- ences tant comme étudiants qu’enseignants dans des milieux d’ALS et d’ALE, mais également en faisant référence à des cadres conceptuels et à la documentation qui s’y rattache.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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