Perceptions Du Plagiat Par De Futurs Enseignants Quebecois : Dimensions Ethiques et Pedagogiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the data of a study on plagiarism conducted in 2018 among a population of 300 final year students enrolled in a teacher education program at Laval University. Its primary purpose was to draw a portrait of the perceptions of future teachers of plagiarism among elementary and secondary students. The questionnaire included 22 questions related to their experiences of plagiarism and pedagogical interventions to deal with it. Three questions led this research: do future teachers 1) have sufficient knowledge of plagiarism? 2) Do they know the pedagogical and ethical actions to deal with plagiarism upstream and downstream? 3) Are they well trained on plagiarism issues? Although future teachers report having a good knowledge of plagiarism, they confess having gaps in each of the three research questions. We conclude that future teachers should be better trained to handle plagiarism in all its forms upstream anddownstream. Keywords: plagiarism, teacher training, school research, ethics
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".