Academic Integrity in Canada: An Annotated Bibliography
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This report documents research and related materials related to academic integrity in Canada to inform and guide future work in the field. It provides an overview of the literature up to and including 2017 relating to academic integrity in Canada. Methods: Two research questions guided this literature review: 1. What scholarly, research, and professional literature showcases Canadian scholarship relating to academic integrity? 2. What major themes emerge from scholarly and research literature about academic integrity in the Canadian context? To this end, a methodical search of databases was undertaken, relevant research was compiled, and articles were summarized and categorized. Results: Our review and search of the literature resulted in 68 sources, which we organized into 7 categories: (a) Attitudes, behaviours, and perceptions; (b) Academic integrity in professional programs; (c) Understanding and supporting international students; (d) Pedagogical implications: Instruction and prevention; (e) Focus on technology; (f) Institutional considerations: Policy, law and case management, and (g) Methodological considerations: Plagiarism research. We found that academic dishonesty in Canada, as in other countries, is widespread among students and faculty, while policies and their implementation are often inconsistent. Calls for clearer guidelines and greater support for students and faculty resound as a consistent theme in the literature. Implications: Academic integrity research in Canada has been slow to develop, but is now experiencing significant growth. As more stakeholders become aware of the scope and complexities of academic integrity, many researchers are making recommendations for policy, policy implementation, and support through technology, education, and intervention programs. Additional materials: 72 References Keywords: Academic integrity, academic dishonesty, academic misconduct, plagiarism, cheating, Canada
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it