MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302500441

China’s Lax Law Harbors Academic Misconduct

2010· article· en· W2302500441 on OpenAlexaff
Xinglong Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsLa Cité Collégiale
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisconductChinaCorporate governanceLawPoliticsPolitical scienceWork (physics)Academic integrityCriminologySociologyManagementEngineering ethicsEngineeringEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

China’s universities are currently being focused on for their problems of academic integrity such as faking research work and corrupt campus politics. Many scandals and tragedies in academic title promotions are caused by lax legal governance and disrespect of academic procedural rules. The priority for academia in China should be a rule of law.

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

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainIncentives
GenreCommentary

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207