A Comparison of the Act and Frequency of Plagiarism between Technical and Non-Technical Programme Undergraduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Concerned with intellectual theft, we decided to examine intellectual theft among undergraduates at a private higher education institution. The aim of this study was to compare the act and frequency of plagiarism, particularly<em> </em>between programmes, gender, year of study and academic performance. This study adopted the quantitative approach, using a questionnaire to gather the students’ background information and the general practice of intellectual theft. It was administered to 120 students, i.e. 30 students undertaking the Engineering, IT, Management and Creative Multimedia programmes. For the purpose of this study, we categorised the programmes into Technical programme (TP), i.e. Engineering and IT programmes (science discipline) and Non-Technical programme (NTP), i.e. Management and Creative Multimedia programmes (non-science discipline). This study found that the act of plagarising was prevalent in both categories of the programmes, however, more prevalent among the technical programme students than the non-technical programme students. We also found that the act of intellectual theft was more evident among the males than female, junior than seniors and average academic achievers than high achievers. A comparison between programmes found significant differences in the act of plagiarism among gender, particularly among the female NTP students, among the Year 3 students and among the high achievers. No significant difference was found in relation to the frequency of plagiarism between programmes and gender, but among the students who sometimes plagiarise by level of study and by academic achievements.</p>
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Research integrity Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | MetaresearchResearch integrity Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".