Using a Modified Bookmark Procedure to Help Identify Reasonable Consequences for Academic Integrity Violations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is recommended that institutions develop academic conduct policies to help preserve academic integrity, enforce compliance, and aid in legal defensibility. These policies should also articulate reasonable consequences for persons found in violation. The problem, however, is that all academic misconduct offenses are not created equal, and determining reasonable consequences for these violations can be particularly challenging due to their subjective nature. Thus, the purpose of this study was to introduce a novel method for more objectively determining reasonable sanctions for several academic misconduct offenses of varying degrees of severity. We utilized a variation of the Bookmark procedure, a popular standard-setting technique used primarily by psychometricians in high-stakes testing environments, to investigate empirical survey data and develop policy recommendations. We encourage others to use this procedure, where appropriate, to identify appropriate cut scores and ranges to aid in policy development across a variety of contexts.
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 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 | 0.037 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.006 |
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.
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".