Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autumn 2008, four employees at Østfold University College (HiØ), one with a Master's Degree in Sosiology, one with a Master's Degree in Nursing and two librarians, interviewed 33 Norwegian College students about the subjects cheating and plagiarism. This is the first such survey conducted in Norway. There are plenty of comparable reseach from countries such as the US, Great Britain, Canada and even Sweden, but the Norwegian focus on these issues has been missing until a few years ago. We started working with this subject about two years ago, about the same time as some incidents of cheating at a private College and a University Faculty got national interest, and HiØ started to review some of the effects of the reform Kvalitetsreformen. Our survey is part of this project named "Kvalitetsreformens vurderingsformer i høgskolen" (http://www.hiof.no/index.php?ID=14004=nor). Some of the topics treated in our survey are collaboration and collusion, consequenses of cheating, information given to students about plagiarism and the role of the libraries. We find that students, staff and teachers care about these subjects, but perhaps in slightly different ways and with different perspectives. Our aim is to let the students speak, and try to listen and understand, and hopefully find some ideas or starting points to start work with. Many colleges and universities are starting working with plans to deal with these issues, and we believe it is important to include the student perspective in this work. We are planning to release our research in a report in the HiØ's Report Series spring 2010.
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 | Qualitative | high |
| gpt | Research integrity Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".