Implementing plagiarism awareness workshop to nursing faculty members, Damanhour University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective : Plagiarism is defined as intentionally and without agreement presenting someone else’s ideas or words, as one’s own work. Plagiarism by academics occurs due to the growing pressure to publish research, in addition to increasing burden to publish in high-impact top-tier journals. The present study aims to implement a plagiarism awareness workshop to Nursing Faculty members to introduce the plagiarism concept as one of research misconducts and to compare between knowledge of Nursing faculty member pre and immediately post workshop. Methods : The study was conducted at Faculty of Nursing, Damanhour University. Subjects: The study subject included 51 working full time nursing faculty members who agreed to participate in the workshop. Study instrument: the researchers had developed a self-administered questionnaire which was designed to assess the nursing faculty member’s perceptions of plagiarism. Results : The current study results showed that 55% of participants have fair knowledge about plagiarism as compared to 11.7% whom knowledge level is poor. Also, it was found that the highest percentage of participants (96.1%) was among those who refused plagiarism post workshop with a significant difference ( p = .001) between responses pre and post workshop. Moreover, the highest median of change (19.23) was among age group 40-50, while the lowest median (3.23) was recorded for the age group 30- with a significant difference between groups ( p = .002). Regarding the participants’ titles, the highest median (20.69) was among assistant professor while the lowest median (-1.72) was among clinical instructor with a significant difference recorded ( p = .050). Conclusions : The current study findings concluded significant positive changes in the level of knowledge of the participants after implementation of workshop.
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 | Not applicable | medium |
| gpt | MetaresearchResearch integrity Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | medium |
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".