MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2680986085

치의학 교육의 학습윤리에 관한 연구

2017· article· ko· W2680986085 on OpenAlex
이지현, 김성훈, 백정화, 한중석, 류인철

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venue대한치과의사협회지 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldNursing
TopicHealthcare Education and Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCheatingAcademic integrityCurriculumHonorDental educationMedical educationEthical codeAcademic dishonestyPsychologyPedagogyPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsMedicinePublic relationsSocial psychologyInternet privacy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The topic of academic integrity is an important public concern that has emerged in higher education. Recent surveys at U.S. and Canadian dental schools revealed that cheating and plagiarism were significant problems in dental schools. In addition, some schools stated that cheating had increased compared to a decade ago. Various institutional rituals have been implemented to enhance the academic integrity environment of U. S. and Canadian dental schools. Furthermore, the application of honor code which is dealing with ethical issues has been reported to improve the attitudes and behaviors of students. Since there have been no reported studies regarding ethics curricula in Korean dental schools, further studies should be needed to assess academic integrity policies, violations, and the results of the measures in Korean dental schools. Additionally, the challenge to provide professional ethics curricula for dental students must be conducted with respect and humanity for our students and thus, students will be more likely to respond positively to expectations in terms of ethical behaviors. Therefore, the outcome is clearly and undoubtedly link to better care for patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.006

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.351 · 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